Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

No Nicolaitans

GenevanPreacher, do you?

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, DaveW said:

It is actually not a difficult question to answer.

Perhaps if I had worded my question differently, I would have gotten a straight answer from GenevanPreacher? However, I based my question upon three things...

  1. GenevanPreacher's own words in the other thread...that Satan was a liar from the beginning.
  2. The verse that GenevanPreacher was referring to...that Satan was a murderer from the beginning.
  3. The established fact that Satan is evil.

I never mentioned "Lucifer", and that seems to be his hangup. I noticed in his final statement, he prefaced it with "I don't believe there ever was an angel named Lucifer", and the rest of his statement hangs on that.

My question was never about Lucifer or the name Lucifer. Perhaps if I had merely asked, "Do you believe that God created Satan as Satan?"

...or...

"Do you believe that God created the Devil as the Devil?"

...or...

"Do you believe that God created Satan as the Devil?"

...or...

"Do you believe that God created the Devil as Satan?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2016 at 0:34 PM, No Nicolaitans said:

So, you're left with two choices...

  1. The angel chose to sin of his own freewill; thereby, becoming Satan.
  2. God created Satan (and the devils); thereby, God is also a sinner. If he created "sinners", their sin had to come from God...plain and simple. There's no way around it, and all of the "it's for God's glory" doesn't negate the fact that the sin in the sinner had to come from God. He's the creator; it all came FROM him, so HE put the sin in them.

God isn't a sinner.

So if the way you think is correct here, God is either a sinner or he isn't? It boils down to this?

I obviously do not believe God is a sinner.

God did create sinners, those with the choice to do good or evil. Mankind would always choose evil over good, and the Lord knew that. He knew everything that was gonna happen after he created.

Notice my lack of saying God created particular men to sin and particular men to not sin. Because that is NOT what I believe.

The phrase "and it was good" in Genesis did not mean everything was pure and kept holy as it was created. It was referring to it being formed the way he intended it to be formed. Snakes had venom, roses had thorns, etc., things which the Lord knew, in time would be used upon man because man would choose evil.

Why is that so hard to realize in a person who believes God didn't create 'evil' I don't know. Your choices assume too much.

If God's choice in making darkness, or actually seperating light and darkness, is so hard to believe, why believe anything else? Did you ever think that the devils that were created by God, were just a residue that God created? He knowing full well that mankind would use darkness as an excuse to get away with sin. God created creatures AND man knowing they would sin or create an atmosphere for sin or influence toward sin. Yet he still made them didn't he.

Knowing before creation that he would take on flesh himself and make reconciliation for sin, he still created man. Amazing isn't it?

No God didn't create sin or sinners - the way you make me sound like I believe - but he did create sinners knowing he would justify those that would believe in him with all their heart. 

Making verses say something they were never intended to say, and using those verses to prove a doctrine, especially on the devil, a creature that needs, and should get, no honoring, is just wild.

As for the verse about the 'covering cherub'...once again, traditional teaching using verses talking about someone else and applying it to a someone else, in particular Satan.

Honoring a false god is wrong brethren. The devils all should be so much more dishonored than this.

A creature that can be bossed around and made to flee by simply resisting is not a creature to magnify in the scriptures nor apply 'prophecies' concerning his origin and fall.

If you have read this whole post...thanks for that.

May you who care about this subject be willing to view the devils all with less importance.

4 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Perhaps if I had worded my question differently, I would have gotten a straight answer from GenevanPreacher? However, I based my question upon three things...

  1. GenevanPreacher's own words in the other thread...that Satan was a liar from the beginning.
  2. The verse that GenevanPreacher was referring to...that Satan was a murderer from the beginning.
  3. The established fact that Satan is evil.

I never mentioned "Lucifer", and that seems to be his hangup. I noticed in his final statement, he prefaced it with "I don't believe there ever was an angel named Lucifer", and the rest of his statement hangs on that.

My question was never about Lucifer or the name Lucifer. Perhaps if I had merely asked, "Do you believe that God created Satan as Satan?"

...or...

"Do you believe that God created the Devil as the Devil?"

...or...

"Do you believe that God created Satan as the Devil?"

...or...

"Do you believe that God created the Devil as Satan?"

Actually you are correct, I was mistaken on the wording, but there is also another verse - 1 John 3:8.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

As for the verse about the 'covering cherub'...once again, traditional teaching using verses talking about someone else and applying it to a someone else, in particular Satan.

Since I am the one who inserted the passage concerning the "anointed cherub that covereth" into the discussion, I will take up this one comment.  Doctrine by "tradition" means nothing whatsoever to me.  Doctrine by precise grammar and context is that which I pursue (as, I believe, you are aware by now).  Since this passage clearly designates the individual about which Ezekiel 28:11-19 speaks as a "cherub," and since God's Word only uses the designation of "cherub" for a particular class of angels, I shall view this individual as an angel upon the ground of grammar and context.  If you wish to dispute the matter through the study of grammar and context, I am willing to engage with you therein.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

God did create sinners

No he didn't. He created man with freewill. Obey or disobey. They weren't sinners until they sinned.

54 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Snakes had venom, roses had thorns, etc.,

Whether snakes had venom before man's fall or not, I don't know, but the Bible strongly indicates that this happened AFTER man sinned...not before. God didn't create them that way. Adam's sin affected all of creation.

57 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Why is that so hard to realize in a person who believes God didn't create 'evil' I don't know.

?

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

If God's choice in making darkness, or actually seperating light and darkness, is so hard to believe, why believe anything else?

?

God divided the darkness from the light for a particular purpose. Day time serves a particular purpose; night time serves a particular purpose. Like everything though, man uses God's creation and gifts for his own selfish needs. God certainly didn't create the darkness to give sinners a better opportunity to sin.

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Did you ever think that the devils that were created by God, were just a residue that God created?

?

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Knowing before creation that he would take on flesh himself and make reconciliation for sin, he still created man. Amazing isn't it?

Yes it is! AMEN! And I truly hope the Lord will reveal his reason one day in eternity. Too many people question this and try to formulate their own hypothesis as to why God created man knowing he would sin. All that I know is that the Bible says that God created man for his glory...and no, I'm not a Calvinist. :nuts:

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

No God didn't create sin or sinners - the way you make me sound like I believe - but he did create sinners knowing he would justify those that would believe in him with all their heart. 

I'm stumped. You say God didn't create sinners, then you say he did create sinners. I understand your saying "not the way I make you sound like you believe", but I'm still stumped. Are you saying that since God knew man would sin (and Satan and the devils) <--- ??? ; technically, he created sinners? 

No, God did not create sinners. He created beings with a free will who could choose to obey or disobey. He created man and angels without sin, yet he knew they would sin; therefore, he created them without sin. They were not sinners UNTIL they sinned.

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

a creature that needs, and should get, no honoring, is just wild.

No one here that I'm aware of is honoring Satan. Aren't there verses about Judas Iscariot? Do we honor him when we talk about him. Aren't there MULTITUDES of verses about people who were opposed to God? Do we honor them simply by talking about them? Aren't there plain, flat-out obvious verses that talk about Satan and the devils. Do we honor them when we discuss those verses? Did it dishonor the Holy Spirit when he inspired men to write about them? Are you saying that to talk about Satan at all is to give him honor?

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

A creature that can be bossed around and made to flee by simply resisting

No one can boss him around simply by resisting. The Bible says that we must first submit ourselves unto God...THEN...resist the devil. 

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

As for the verse about the 'covering cherub'...once again, traditional teaching using verses talking about someone else and applying it to a someone else, in particular Satan.

Do you honestly think the human king of Tyrus was in Eden, that he was a cherub, that his covering was all of those precious stones, that he was PERFECT until iniquity was found in him, etc.? No one got into Eden after Adam and Eve were banished. God had angels guard it. Then the flood came, and who knows if the angels were needed after that...I don't think they were.

Now, unlike the Lucifer reference, I do believe that this is a clear reference to Satan. He was the king of Tyrus...good grief...the Bible plainly states that he's the god of this world. It's little wonder he would rule a city. I would assume that the human king was either possessed, or Satan had such influence on him that his choices were Satan's choices.

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

If you have read this whole post...thanks for that.

I did.

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

May you who care about this subject be willing to view the devils all with less importance.

I certainly do care about the subject. The Lord put it in his word; it's important to God, and he wanted us to know about it. If the devils aren't that important and we shouldn't care about the subject, why are there accounts about them in God's word, why are we told to wear the whole armour of God, why did he tell us that our fight isn't with flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.and why did God tell us that Satan walks about seeking whom he may devour.

Seems like God cares about the subject and views it with importance.

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Actually you are correct, I was mistaken on the wording, but there is also another verse - 1 John 3:8.

Absolutely, the devil did sin from the beginning...his beginning as the devil...not before he became the devil.

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Thanks.

Thank you for your response; I do appreciate it. I can see that you're sure of what you believe, and as I said, I will drop this. I only responded again, because you responded and took the time to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Making verses say something they were never intended to say, and using those verses to prove a doctrine, especially on the devil, a creature that needs, and should get, no honoring, is just wild.

As for the verse about the 'covering cherub'...once again, traditional teaching using verses talking about someone else and applying it to a someone else, in particular Satan.

Honoring a false god is wrong brethren. The devils all should be so much more dishonored than this.

First of all, I do NOT NOT NOT see ANYONE here "honoring" a false god NOR devils. To suggest that to discuss this is somehow dishonoring God would be contrary to scripture: 2 Tim. 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".  We don't throw out ANY scripture, nor refuse to discuss ANY part of scripture. Nor is it "honoring" the devil by discussing his freewill choice to sin. 

I don't see anyone here "making verses say something they were never intended to say" in regard to lucifer nor to the anointed cherub that covereth. It's OBVIOUS that God's word is not talking about a mere man in either of these sections of scripture, and let's look at WHY that is:

Isaiah 14:1-11 We can see an EXAMPLE given of a wicked king of Babylon.

Starting at verse 12, we can see a change in subject character.

12 "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
13 "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:"
14 "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."
15 "Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."

Cetainly you don't entertain the thought that a mere MAN (a king of Babylon) had "fallen from heaven"??? (v.12)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A similar concept is put forth in Ezekiel 28:1-12. We see an EXAMPLE given of the prince of Tyre.

And again,  we see a change in subject character starting in verse 13

13 "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created."
14 "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire."
15 "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."
16 "By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire."
17 "Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee."

Again, certainly you don't entertain the thought that a mere MAN (a prince of Tyre) was in "Eden the garden of God"???
And certainly you don't ALSO entertain the thought that a mere MAN (a prince of Tyre) was  an "anointed cherub"???

I might even go so far as to say that both the king of Babylon AND the prince of Tyre were LED of the devil...
HOWEVER, I believe they made a CHOICE (by their God-given FREE WILL) to CHOOSE whom they would serve and to whom they would be LED by!
Just as God gave all of Israel (in Shechem) a FREE WILL CHOICE to determine for themselves whom they would serve (Josh. 24:15)

And Yes, God also created the devil with a FREE WILL choice. We can see what the devil chose... PRIDE and ARROGANCE with the delusion that he could exalt himself above his maker (Isaiah 14:12-15)
Again, we see God created the devil with a FREE WILL choice. We can see the devil chose VANITY and PRIDE again (Ezekiel 28:13-17)
We see that same PRIDE, VANITY, and ARROGANCE of the devil when he had the audacity to attempt to tempt Jesus Himself (Matt. 4:1-10)

Pride, vanity, and arrogance are ALL WILLFUL sins.
A person has to decide of their own FREE WILL to be prideful, vain, or arrogant.
The devil wasn't created as prideful, arrogant, or vain... he was created "perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."
We can see it is a FREE WILL CHOICE, when we study God's word regarding the CHOICE to be humble before the Lord:
Humble FREE WILL choices: (Jer. 13:18, James 4:10, 1 Pet.5:5-6, Exodus 10:3, 2 Kings 21:29, 2 Kings 22:19 et al)

Often it may be these 3 sins are the least easy for one person to see in themselves, but we ALL make these choices on a daily basis... do we live to serve God or to serve ourselves? That is a freewill choice as well.
Do we place our own (sinful and selfish) desires ABOVE serving God? Or do we HUMBLE ourselves (by our own free wil choice) before the Lord?
Pride, arrogance, and vanity are SINS and ARE all free will choices. 
The devil had the FREE WILL choice to HUMBLE himself before the Lord (as we ALL have that same free will choice).
Apparently the devil is so full of himself with the sins of pride, arrogance, and vanity that he actually has deluded himself into thinking he has a chance to usurp God Himself?!?!?! Which SHOULD be a HUGE warning to all. 

On 7/20/2016 at 4:55 AM, Genevanpreacher said:

where did ol' Lucifer get the idea to sin?


Did someone have to tempt the devil in order for him to be prideful, arrogant, and vain? I don't believe so!
I believe he chose of his own FREE WILL not to humble himself before the Lord. The devil CHOSE of his own free will to commit the sins of pride, arrogance, and vanity.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2016 at 10:16 PM, Ronda said:

Again, certainly you don't entertain the thought that a mere MAN (a prince of Tyre) was in "Eden the garden of God"???
And certainly you don't ALSO entertain the thought that a mere MAN (a prince of Tyre) was  an "anointed cherub"???

When you read on in Isaiah 14, past your supposed subject change, it is very obviously talking about a "man". So yes, when you see the words in Ezekiel in the way it is written, it is speaking of a man. It is not a 'literal' passage, but a 'descriptive' passage about the type of man that he was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Isaiah 14, did anyone ever notice that those trees from Lebanon had Southern accents?

Isaiah 14:8
Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.

Get it? Feller...instead of fellow?  :coverlaugh:

The South...instead of the North?  :coverlaugh:

Get it? Southern accents?  :coverlaugh:

Feller! :nuts:

Yes, I know what "feller" actually means.  :coffee2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Speaking of Isaiah 14, did anyone ever notice that those trees from Lebanon had Southern accents?

Isaiah 14:8
Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.

Get it? Feller...instead of fellow?  :coverlaugh:

The South...instead of the North?  :coverlaugh:

Get it? Southern accents?  :coverlaugh:

Feller! :nuts:

Yes, I know what "feller" actually means.  :coffee2:

You are truly witty. Thanks for the giggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

You are truly witty. Thanks for the giggle.

Well...believe it or not, I was voted Wittiest in High School...I really was. Of course, that was long before I became a staunch, long-faced, outwardly-righteous, critical, Pharisaical-no-fun-allowed type. :tapping:  :angry:  :verymad:

:nuts:  :nuts:  :nuts:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2016 at 7:23 AM, Genevanpreacher said:

When you read on in Isaiah 14, past your supposed subject change, it is very obviously talking about a "man". So yes, when you see the words in Ezekiel in the way it is written, it is speaking of a man. It is not a 'literal' passage, but a 'descriptive' passage about the type of man that he was.

In both Isaiah 14 as well as in Ezekiel 28 God's word gives examples of a literal subject. He used a king and a prince as examples of characteristics of the literal subject matter... the devil. Jesus Himself did much the same thing when He gave parables.

Jesus Himself took God's word literally. Whenever He quoted the OT it was clear He believed in it's literal interpretation.

Deut 8:3 "...that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live."
Matt.4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Jesus Himself gave many parables, when teaching He gave examples that people could relate to, so it would be easier to understand.
But there was another reason Jesus used parables...

Luke 8:9-10
"And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?"
"And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand."

Yes, there are many figures of speech, and examples given to explain literal subject meanings within scripture.
Rather than use those figures of speech and examples as a help to understand literal meaning, many prefer to discount ALL scripture as symbolic, figurative, and open to whatever interpretation best suits a theory. This also leaves the door wide open to twisting the parts which are obviously to be taken literally when one can't delineate between the examples given and the actual (literal) subject the examples were given to help explain.

Even though Jesus was speaking to Israel in Luke 8, we can see that these same parables and scripture are read today... and again, there were 2 reasons for the parables. Examples to be used as help to understand the literal subject, OR so that one might not see, hear, or understand.  

Growing up, I didn't understand how that could be... how could a person be told something, and then even shown examples to help them understand, and yet the person didn't understand the plain thing told them, much less the examples given? Would it just take repetition to learn? But as the years went by, and countless discussions occurred , I realized the examples or parables confused them rather than helped them. Someone could give a thousand examples to help someone understand a literal subject, but IF that literal subject is something they do not want to hear, see, or understand.... they willingly make the choice not to. I do have my own thoughts on why a person would chose that option, but I realized it's not up to me to determine WHY that is... God truly knows, God gave everyone free will. So the best thing I (myself) can do for the person then is to pray for them.  

 

Edited by Ronda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't "create" darkness; darkness is simply the absence of light just as "cold" is nothing more than the absence of heat.  Evil is simply the absence of righteousness and good.  It is not created, but exists simply as a consequence of righteousness existing with God. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 2bLikeJesus said:

You don't "create" darkness; darkness is simply the absence of light just as "cold" is nothing more than the absence of heat.  Evil is simply the absence of righteousness and good.  It is not created, but exists simply as a consequence of righteousness existing with God. 

Exactly! Thank you 2b! That's what I think about the existence of devils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ronda said:

In both Isaiah 14 as well as in Ezekiel 28 God's word gives examples of a literal subject. He used a king and a prince as examples of characteristics of the literal subject matter... the devil. 

And just where in scripture is this explained Rhonda?

Where is it told that God would give details of a 'Luciferian existence'?

And why would God want us to know these particular 'histories'? What is the purpose?

No, not as examples to us on how we shouldn't rebel against God...But somebody 'read between the lines' and created a 'Lucifer' and boy did it catch on!

Men who translated my Bible in 1560 knew to what the verses referred, and they didn't 'see' what people see today. Here's what they knew about 'Lucifer' -

"Thou that thoughtest thyself most glorious, and as it were placed in the heaven, for the morning star that goeth before the sun, is called Lucifer, to whom Nebuchadnezzar is compared."

Simple truth, and no spiritualizing and twisting the words of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Exactly! Thank you 2b! That's what I think about the existence of devils.

Except that devils are actual things, not the lack of something.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DaveW said:

Except that devils are actual things, not the lack of something.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense.

It does if you read the first few verses of Genesis 1 and focus on the light and darkness getting separated by God, with that being the creation of the Angels, with the devils being what the Angels were separated from, making the devils the residue left behind.

Sorry. Had to post and run!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

It does if you read the first few verses of Genesis 1 and focus on the light and darkness getting separated by God, with that being the creation of the Angels, with the devils being what the Angels were separated from, making the devils the residue left behind.

Sorry. Had to post and run!

The explanation was required for it to make any sense, but you are still wrong.

In your scenario you have both good and evil angels existing.

In 2blikeJesus post there is the positive which exists and the negative which does not exist but is simply the absence of the positive.

Your scenario has both positive and negative existing, which is totally NOT the concept 2blikeJesus was expressing.

Edited by DaveW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DaveW said:

The explanation was required for it to make any sense, but you are still wrong.

In your scenario you have both good and evil angels existing.

In 2blikeJesus post there is the positive which exists and the negative which does not exist but is simply the absence of the positive.

Your scenario has both positive and negative existing, which is totally NOT the concept 2blikeJesus was expressing.

At least I don't have to make up some grand story to explain a fallen leader of a band of fallen Angels by using verses that have nothing to do with such.

"Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness."

"For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation."

Darkness has been a great example of sin and evil. To me that makes more sense than the verses explaining a so-called Lucifer.

Now look at -

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

And what do devils want to look like to us -

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

Just my opinion. Or is it? -

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

We are children of the day.

Thanks. I am sure this will be torn apart soon. Have fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

At least I don't have to make up some grand story to explain a fallen leader of a band of fallen Angels by using verses that have nothing to do with such.

"Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness."

"For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation."

Darkness has been a great example of sin and evil. To me that makes more sense than the verses explaining a so-called Lucifer.

Now look at -

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

And what do devils want to look like to us -

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

Just my opinion. Or is it? -

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

We are children of the day.

Thanks. I am sure this will be torn apart soon. Have fun!

So apart from one that specifically references Satan (and him representing himself as an angel of light), what have any of those passages got to do with 2blikeJesus' point above, or indeed with origin of Satan?

Or are you now trying to avoid the corner you have painted yourself into by sidestepping to another subject?

You accuse others here of misusing Scripture but here you have used scriptures that make no reference to angels/devils to make some point about the origin of evil angels and Satan.

 

 

Edited by DaveW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing is certain from this GP post: He believes that evil angels were created as evil angels.

 

14 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

It does if you read the first few verses of Genesis 1 and focus on the light and darkness getting separated by God, with that being the creation of the Angels, with the devils being what the Angels were separated from, making the devils the residue left behind.

Sorry. Had to post and run!

He tries to mask it by using the phrase "the residue left behind", but there are so many problems with this theory.

  • This means there is evil before the sixth day is finished where God says:

Gen 1:31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

I know he has already argued against this, but the different phrasing between the other days and this day indicates more than just that God was happy with it - and even if that was the case - can we honestly think that God was happy with His creation that according to this understanding included evil from the beginning?

Not the God that I see in the Bible. Maybe some sort of half strength god like the Mormons or the Mohammedans have, but not the God of the Bible.

  • God actively created everything that is, so there was no "residue left over" - at least not according to the Lord Jesus Christ:

Joh 1:1-3
(1)  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2)  The same was in the beginning with God.
(3)  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


Notice that it says "All things were made Him...." That includes angels - unless of course you are following Mormon teaching, which says the angels are minor gods.

 

I have to say that I have heard a similar argument when having discussion with Calvinists who don't like "double predestination" - they refuse to see the other side of the coin which is obvious - that if God chooses some to glory, then He must be default choose the others for eternal punishment.

Angles, whether good or evil, are created beings - there was nothing formed from any sort of "residue" that God did not actively create. To speculate otherwise is yet another example of straining at gnats and swallowing camels that this guy is doing throughout this thread.

To make such a fuss about a passage that most everyone here thinks has a dual application - literal of a real king, and indicative of Satan's situation (if I read most of the comments here correctly) and then to make an absolute speculative statement about evil angels being the "residue" of good angel creation with no scriptural backup for it, is astounding to say the least.

 

But we are now clear on the fact that GP believes that the evil angels were from their inception created as evil angels, although he somehow attributes their existence to some sort of "Side-effect" of creating good angels.

I don't really want a god who can't make things without making "mistakes on the side".

And I don't see that god in my Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than risk this degenerating into --- "You have put your interpretation on my words", "No, anyone can see your implication", "That's a misrepresentation", etc. Let's do this:

GP - for sake of clarity:

1) Is Satan a real entity (person or being as opposed to an inanimate object or a nebulous power)?

2) Was Satan created wicked?

3) If #2 is "No", Did Satan choose darkness over light? Or did God withdraw the light from him, leaving him in darkness? If the answer is different from those 2 choices,please explain.

4) Was Satan created? If so, before day 1, sometime during days 1-6 or after day 7?

 

Yes, I realize I may very well know your answers to those questions. No, I'm not trying to make you look ridiculous. Maybe this will end some of the yah,yah by providing substantial, definitive answers (maybe, maybe not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, OLD fashioned preacher said:

Rather than risk this degenerating into --- "You have put your interpretation on my words", "No, anyone can see your implication", "That's a misrepresentation", etc. Let's do this:

GP - for sake of clarity:

1) Is Satan a real entity (person or being as opposed to an inanimate object or a nebulous power)?

2) Was Satan created wicked?

3) If #2 is "No", Did Satan choose darkness over light? Or did God withdraw the light from him, leaving him in darkness? If the answer is different from those 2 choices,please explain.

4) Was Satan created? If so, before day 1, sometime during days 1-6 or after day 7?

 

Yes, I realize I may very well know your answers to those questions. No, I'm not trying to make you look ridiculous. Maybe this will end some of the yah,yah by providing substantial, definitive answers (maybe, maybe not).

1) Yes, a real entity. Did you know John Bunyun in "Pilgrims Progress" called devils ''all the satans in Hell..."? Interesting wording.

2) Yes. He wasn't 'forced' to be, but his nature was to be evil. Not as confusing as it sounds.

3)There was light and darkness in the 'concentration' that the Lord pulled the matter from to create everything he wanted to come into existence.

4) Plain to understand, yes he was, but not against his nature. His nature, and all satans/devils, is/are evil. When God said "let there be light" he separated the light from the darkness, the Angels of God, from that concentrated form we know as "earth without form", and the angelic forms of darkness, now known as devils, and poof, there you have them.

There is NO OTHER place in scripture to show the creation of the Angels of God or the devils. No where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Wow, I don't think I have ever seen this much conjecture to explain a bible belief, GP.

The scary thing Jim is that SO many Christians accept the Lucifer story without question. Just like the doctrine of dispensationalism, as well as the gap theory. SO many preach the same teachings that people will not bother to look 'outside the box' when it comes to actually reading and praying themselves to their Lord about clarity.

I am not afraid to use the mind that the Lord gave me to understand what he wants me to know. It seems easy to let the scriptures explain themselves and leave the made up stories to those who want to play with the meanings.

Take the verse you quoted earlier - 'here a little, and there a little' - a much over used verse to help men of God  have license to teach almost anything. And THAT is true conjecturing. You might read down a few verses and see what your verse means -

"But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

Yep. That's what'll happen.

On 7/28/2016 at 7:22 PM, DaveW said:

The explanation was required for it to make any sense, but you are still wrong.

In your scenario you have both good and evil angels existing.

In 2blikeJesus post there is the positive which exists and the negative which does not exist but is simply the absence of the positive.

Your scenario has both positive and negative existing, which is totally NOT the concept 2blikeJesus was expressing.

Well Dave, you might consider the fact that there WAS evil before the sixth day by Gods own words -

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:"

The Lord knew good AND evil.

You can 'conjecture' all you want here fellas, but evil existed before Adam ate, and there had to be a reason he did. This is what men made the stories to explain Lucifer for, after all. EVEN though there are no facts to support their stories, people believe them.

So I am not conjecturing at all, unless you believe they do with the fallen angels story?

There are years worth of studying in what I believe,  so I don't have the time to explain every little jot and tittle for why I believe, but there you go, you got the root of what I believe about this subject. 

Edited by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

The scary thing Jim is that SO many Christians accept the Lucifer story without question. Just like the doctrine of dispensationalism, as well as the gap theory. SO many preach the same teachings that people will not bother to look 'outside the box' when it comes to actually reading and praying themselves to their Lord about clarity.

I am not afraid to use the mind that the Lord gave me to understand what he wants me to know. It seems easy to let the scriptures explain themselves and leave the made up stories to those who want to play with the meanings.

Take the verse you quoted earlier - 'here a little, and there a little' - a much over used verse to help men of God  have license to teach almost anything. And THAT is true conjecturing. You might read down a few verses and see what your verse means -

"But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

Yep. That's what'll happen.

Well Dave, you might consider the fact that there WAS evil before the sixth day by Gods own words -

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:"

The Lord knew good AND evil.

You can 'conjecture' all you want here fellas, but evil existed before Adam ate, and there had to be a reason he did. This is what men made the stories to explain Lucifer for, after all. EVEN though there are no facts to support their stories, people believe them.

So I am not conjecturing at all, unless you believe they do with the fallen angels story?

There are years worth of studying in what I believe,  so I don't have the time to explain every little jot and tittle for why I believe, but there you go, you got the root of what I believe about this subject. 

Quoted for posterity.

(So we have record of what he said before he changes it AGAIN.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

1) Yes, a real entity. Did you know John Bunyun in "Pilgrims Progress" called devils ''all the satans in Hell..."? Interesting wording.

2) Yes. He wasn't 'forced' to be, but his nature was to be evil. Not as confusing as it sounds.

3)There was light and darkness in the 'concentration' that the Lord pulled the matter from to create everything he wanted to come into existence.

4) Plain to understand, yes he was, but not against his nature. His nature, and all satans/devils, is/are evil. When God said "let there be light" he separated the light from the darkness, the Angels of God, from that concentrated form we know as "earth without form", and the angelic forms of darkness, now known as devils, and poof, there you have them.

There is NO OTHER place in scripture to show the creation of the Angels of God or the devils. No where.

I would really like it if you could provide Scripture to support each point.  You lecture us for just following the teaching of man, but then when asked to clarify what you believe, you provide no Scripture to support it.  Further, each one of your points flies in the face of very clear Scripture (except for point one...)

Edited by Steve Schwenke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 25 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...