I heard satan could still visit heaven after he was kicked out....

[Joe_OFS]

This is my first post to these forums. Fascinating subject. By way of introduction I am franciscan in practice and Jungian in psychology. That being said as in the case of Job. Satan can do whatever God let's him do. A good read on the subject is Carl G. Jung's Answer to Job. Though I don't agree with everything in the treatise it does add a different spin on culpability.

Peace

Bro. Joe

 

[Elijah674]

This is my first post to these forums. Fascinating subject. By way of introduction I am franciscan in practice and Jungian in psychology. That being said as in the case of Job. Satan can do whatever God let's him do. A good read on the subject is Carl G. Jung's Answer to Job. Though I don't agree with everything in the treatise it does add a different spin on culpability.

Peace

Bro. Joe

Hi Joe, welcome on board! If one can use our 'created thinking brain' that God created us with, there is a lot of 'simple' english in the K.J.. Because of this 'i' have about given up on the Jer. 17:5 ones who do not hardly any agreeing with much that can be found with God saying!;)

Have you gotten into Luciffer's ex/job any?? That subject from Gen. - Rev. gives us way past the Rev. 17:1-5 ones insight for why the prophecy finds them so.... in bottom/line. Psalms 77:13

[13] Thy way, O God, [[is in the sanctuary]]: who is so great a God as our God?

So it sure seems top priority to get inside & see what God's way is! And again, this was where Luciffer was assigned in his beginning.

--Elijah

 

[childeye]

Hi, where does it say (in verse 13) when that took place?? And you do rightly agree that Michael is Christ Michael??
<SUP>7</SUP>And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon;

--Elijah

Verse 13 shows that he was cast down after the woman had given birth to the child who was caught up to God. This would be after the resurrection of the Christ. I don't know about why you believe Michael is Jesus.

 

[childeye]

Lucifer’s name meant lightbearer when he was created as he was a reflection of Gods brightness as one who had favor in the Lord. God changed his name to Satan, which means adversary, after he fell from heaven. God changed many names from one to another in the Bible to reflect his glory through them as a nation. Lucifer was created perfect in all his ways with beauty, wisdom and freewill. God placed him as the guardian or protector over the throne of God in heaven. He was entrusted with many possessions and found much favor in the Lord.
God created the earth and saw that it was good and he took Lucifer from Gods Holy Mountain and set him over the Garden of Eden as a covering cherub to watch over and enjoy all that was of God. As Lucifer was set in the garden iniquity was soon found in him as he defiled Gods sanctuary through pride in his own beauty and wisdom as he wanted all that was of Gods here on earth to be his own and violence soon filled his heart as he tried to make his throne above the angels and be God. Because iniquity was found in him God cast him and those angels who chose to follow him out of his holy mountain and cast them all down to earth to be trampled of all nations. The only reference in scripture that denotes there being one third of the angels falling with Satan is in Revelation 12:4.
(Ref: Read Ezekiel Chapter 28 Prince of Tyrus)

It is not possible that Satan was made with a freewill since there exists a Godhead. Satan was created with a will as are all of us. But a freewill? How does such a thing exist? Every will is subject to ignorance and knowledge and these terms are relative to God. All of scripture points this out. Satan's mistake is he thought he had a freewill without any esteem for the Godhead therefore. This taking the term freewill to mean one can disobey God and live is folly. Otherwise vanity is a choice rather than a delusion. Man exhibits the same traits as Satan.

Romans 1:21

King James Version (KJV)

<SUP id=en-KJV-27952 class=versenum>21</SUP>Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Job 41:33-34

King James Version (KJV)


<SUP id=en-KJV-13922 class=versenum>33</SUP>Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. <SUP id=en-KJV-13923 class=versenum>34</SUP>He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

 

[Elijah674]

It is not possible that Satan was made with a freewill since there exists a Godhead. Satan was created with a will as are all of us. But a freewill? How does such a thing exist? Every will is subject to ignorance and knowledge and these terms are relative to God. All of scripture points this out. Satan's mistake is he thought he had a freewill without any esteem for the Godhead therefore. This taking the term freewill to mean one can disobey God and live is folly. Otherwise vanity is a choice rather than a delusion.

Romans 1:21

King James Version (KJV)

<sup id="en-KJV-27952" class="versenum">21</sup>Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

'IF' You just conterdicted yourself, is it by free choice or an darkened heart??
(my added highlites in your verse) Anyway, you need not post all scripture that points the above out!;)

--Elijah

 

[for_his_glory]

It is not possible that Satan was made with a freewill since there exists a Godhead. Satan was created with a will as are all of us. But a freewill? How does such a thing exist? Every will is subject to ignorance and knowledge and these terms are relative to God. All of scripture points this out. Satan's mistake is he thought he had a freewill without any esteem for the Godhead therefore. This taking the term freewill to mean one can disobey God and live is folly. Otherwise vanity is a choice rather than a delusion. Man exhibits the same traits as Satan.

Romans 1:21

King James Version (KJV)

<SUP id=en-KJV-27952 class=versenum>21</SUP>Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Job 41:33-34

King James Version (KJV)


<SUP id=en-KJV-13922 class=versenum>33</SUP>Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. <SUP id=en-KJV-13923 class=versenum>34</SUP>He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

Many men teach that man either has no free-will (fatalism) or limited amounts of it. The Bible teaches that every person with a moral capacity has the freedom of will to decide whether or not to obey God. Simply put, the Bible teaches that God elected (predestined or set in place) to save every soul who fears God and works righteousness, (Acts 10:34-35). That is, before time eternal, God predestined that men would be saved "in Christ" (Eph. 1:3-4, 7-12). God predestined the "plan" of human redemption (cf. Eph. 3:10-11).

God also determined that man would have free-will, the ability and responsibility to choose to obey Him (cf. Gen. 3:1-6; Josh. 24:15; Matt. 11:28). God did not predestine the man (which individuals would be saved & lost), He predestined the plan (how men would be saved) - read again Acts 10:34-35; Eph. 1:3-12; Rom. 8:28-30; 10:9-17.

 

[childeye]

'IF' You just conterdicted yourself, is it by free choice or an darkened heart??
(my added highlites in your verse) Anyway, you need not post all scripture that points the above out!;)

--Elijah

Thanks for the response Elijah 674. I appreciate your sincere candor. My answer is if I contradicted myself then my reasoning is based upon a lie that I believe to be true. However my reasoning works from the conviction that God is trustworthy and all lies invented by Satan are meant to undermine that conviction. That is how hypocrisy is revealed.

The term free is a relative term wherein it can invoke both negative and positive depending upon how it is applied. The contradiction is in the term freewill itself. This makes it an indefinite definition ripe for the use of subterfuge. This is easily pointed out by saying the will that is a slave to sin is free from God and the will that is a slave to God is free from sin. But he who is a slave to sin is not free from sin and he who is a slave to God is not free from God. This shows that the word free in one sense is actually slavery in another, all depending on ones image of God. So when someone speaks of a freewill as an absolute, that is an impossiblility since we are always subject to a higher power. That is what recognizing a Godhead is.

So here are my supposed choices. I can believe that I decide if God is trustworthy or not with my freewill. Or I can acknowledge that I don't ever decide if He is trustworthy since I am entertaining the proposition that I am better than the Creator of the universe, by doing so. Therefore I am already deceived if I am contemplating that I have the choice. The choice is clear I am in no position to question His trustworthiness in the first place. That's why righteousness is by faith not choice.

The verse in Romans 1:21 says men did not esteem God as God even though we knew Him. Many will say this means anyone who says they don't have a freewill is making an excuse applying culpability to the term based upon the ability to decide. The problem is the scripture says men did not glorify God as God and were unthankful. This applies culpability not to the ability to choose, but rather to taking for granted God's righteous attributes as the product of our own will. That's why scripture goes on to say in verse 22.
Romans 1:22

King James Version (KJV)

<SUP id=en-KJV-27953 class=versenum>22</SUP>Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Consequently there is no contradiction in the scripture that claims we both knew God yet did no Glorify Him as God. It would be no different than saying a teenager knew his parents but did not honor them as his Parents. This is all corroberated in the story of the prodigal son.

 

[Elijah674]

Thanks for the response Elijah 674. I appreciate your sincere candor. My answer is if I contradicted myself then my reasoning is based upon a lie that I believe to be true. However my reasoning works from the conviction that God is trustworthy and all lies invented by Satan are meant to undermine that conviction. That is how hypocrisy is revealed.

The term free is a relative term wherein it can invoke both negative and positive depending upon how it is applied. The contradiction is in the term freewill itself. This makes it an indefinite definition ripe for the use of subterfuge. This is easily pointed out by saying the will that is a slave to sin is free from God and the will that is a slave to God is free from sin. But he who is a slave to sin is not free from sin and he who is a slave to God is not free from God. This shows that the word free in one sense is actually slavery in another, all depending on ones image of God. So when someone speaks of a freewill as an absolute, that is an impossiblility since we are always subject to a higher power. That is what recognizing a Godhead is.

So here are my supposed choices. I can believe that I decide if God is trustworthy or not with my freewill. Or I can acknowledge that I don't ever decide if He is trustworthy since I am entertaining the proposition that I am better than the Creator of the universe, by doing so. Therefore I am already deceived if I am contemplating that I have the choice. The choice is clear I am in no position to question His trustworthiness in the first place. That's why righteousness is by faith not choice.

The verse in Romans 1:21 says men did not esteem God as God even though we knew Him. Many will say this means anyone who says they don't have a freewill is making an excuse applying culpability to the term based upon the ability to decide. The problem is the scripture says men did not glorify God as God and were unthankful. This applies culpability not to the ability to choose, but rather to taking for granted God's righteous attributes as the product of our own will. That's why scripture goes on to say in verse 22.
Romans 1:22

King James Version (KJV)

<sup id="en-KJV-27953" class="versenum">22</sup>Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Consequently there is no contradiction in the scripture that claims we both knew God yet did no Glorify Him as God. It would be no different than saying a teenager knew his parents but did not honor them as his Parents. This is all corroberated in the story of the prodigal son.

Hi:waving,
'i' liked this post above yours, by Glory..

Many men teach that man either has no free-will (fatalism) or limited amounts of it. The Bible teaches that every person with a moral capacity has the freedom of will to decide whether or not to obey God. Simply put, the Bible teaches that God elected (predestined or set in place) to save every soul who fears God and works righteousness, (Acts 10:34-35). That is, before time eternal, God predestined that men would be saved "in Christ" (Eph. 1:3-4, 7-12). God predestined the "plan" of human redemption (cf. Eph. 3:10-11).

God also determined that man would have free-will, the ability and responsibility to choose to obey Him (cf. Gen. 3:1-6; Josh. 24:15; Matt. 11:28). God did not predestine the man (which individuals would be saved & lost), He predestined the plan (how men would be saved) - read again Acts 10:34-35; Eph. 1:3-12; Rom. 8:28-30; 10:9-17.

Joshua 24:15 as for me and my house we will serve the Lord

"must be about my Fathers business"

(my website) www.ourchurch.com/member/m/ministering

----------

Elijah again. I think that Rom. 4:17 last part of the verses has some twisting things up also for what God indeed does but we cannot!
​

 

[childeye]

Many men teach that man either has no free-will (fatalism) or limited amounts of it. The Bible teaches that every person with a moral capacity has the freedom of will to decide whether or not to obey God. Simply put, the Bible teaches that God elected (predestined or set in place) to save every soul who fears God and works righteousness, (Acts 10:34-35). That is, before time eternal, God predestined that men would be saved "in Christ" (Eph. 1:3-4, 7-12). God predestined the "plan" of human redemption (cf. Eph. 3:10-11).

God also determined that man would have free-will, the ability and responsibility to choose to obey Him (cf. Gen. 3:1-6; Josh. 24:15; Matt. 11:28). God did not predestine the man (which individuals would be saved & lost), He predestined the plan (how men would be saved) - read again Acts 10:34-35; Eph. 1:3-12; Rom. 8:28-30; 10:9-17.

Hi for His glory, thanks for your responding. I wasn't sure you would. Please pardon my contention with some things you say and I humbly ask that you try to understand my reason for contention.

I do not typically engage in fate as the alternative to freewill since this would be a false dichotomy. Certainly I would agree the plan of salvation is God's and unto His Glory, for He has delivered a Gospel that only those who have eyes to see and ears to hear can receive. As Jesus said
Matthew 11:25

New International Version (NIV)

The Father Revealed in the Son

<SUP id=en-NIV-23485 class=versenum>25</SUP> At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

You first defined freewill as the ability and responsibility to obey God as do I. It is why I point out that men who disobey and are irresponsible do not have freewills. Contrary to that, the common teaching of Satan is that man is not a freewill lest he can disobey God or otherwise he is merely a slave. That's why he is the father of sin.

Respectfully, you then however contradict yourself by saying the bible teaches that every person with a moral capacity has the freedom of will to decide whether or not to obey God. How is that a contradiction? Because moral capacity is based upon the Word of God in a mans heart. Consequently men with little Love, love little. That is to say without the love of God in a mans heart he is immoral not moral. Do men choose to have this love and choose not to at their discretion? No they don't, for that is what the Gospel testifies to when it says it makes the seeing blind and the blind seeing.

For example; Is it immoral to crucify an innocent man? Yes it is, yet Jesus knew they could not help themselves as is testified to by Paul the apostle. And this is brought to light in the scriptures.

John 8:42-43

New International Version (NIV)

<SUP id=en-NIV-26424 class=versenum>42</SUP> Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. <SUP id=en-NIV-26425 class=versenum>43</SUP> Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.

John 5:38

New International Version (NIV)

<SUP id=en-NIV-26249 class=versenum>38</SUP> nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.
John 8:47

New International Version (NIV)

<SUP id=en-NIV-26429 class=versenum>47</SUP> Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
John 6:64-65

New International Version (NIV)

<SUP id=en-NIV-26322 class=versenum>64</SUP> Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. <SUP id=en-NIV-26323 class=versenum>65</SUP> He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

1 Corinthians 2:7-8

New International Version (NIV)

<SUP id=en-NIV-28402 class=versenum>7</SUP> No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. <SUP id=en-NIV-28403 class=versenum>8</SUP> None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Romans 9:16

New International Version (NIV)

<SUP id=en-NIV-28172 class=versenum>16</SUP> It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

Thank you for reading this and I hope you will return comment.

 

[childeye]

Hi:waving,
'i' liked this post above yours, by Glory..

Many men teach that man either has no free-will (fatalism) or limited amounts of it. The Bible teaches that every person with a moral capacity has the freedom of will to decide whether or not to obey God. Simply put, the Bible teaches that God elected (predestined or set in place) to save every soul who fears God and works righteousness, (Acts 10:34-35). That is, before time eternal, God predestined that men would be saved "in Christ" (Eph. 1:3-4, 7-12). God predestined the "plan" of human redemption (cf. Eph. 3:10-11).

God also determined that man would have free-will, the ability and responsibility to choose to obey Him (cf. Gen. 3:1-6; Josh. 24:15; Matt. 11:28). God did not predestine the man (which individuals would be saved & lost), He predestined the plan (how men would be saved) - read again Acts 10:34-35; Eph. 1:3-12; Rom. 8:28-30; 10:9-17.

Joshua 24:15 as for me and my house we will serve the Lord

"must be about my Fathers business"

(my website) www.ourchurch.com/member/m/ministering

----------

Elijah again. I think that Rom. 4:17 last part of the verses has some twisting things up also for what God indeed does but we cannot!
​

I read for his glory's post and understand his position. It simply is not scriptural. He is debating freewill framing the issue with the opposite being fatalism. That is a common thing to do in psychology. I however am framing the debate as the opposite of a freewill would be a will in bondage. This is a scriptural point of view. I would ask you to consider why Paul says that the children born of the Old Testament are in bondage. Even because it is based on mens works under the law. That is the freewill described by for his glory when he says everyman who has a moral capacity has the freedom to decide whether to obey God or not. This is not righteousness by faith.

Incidentally, your Joshua scripture left out the main part of his point.
Joshua 24:19-22

New International Version (NIV)


<SUP id=en-NIV-6496 class=versenum>19</SUP> Joshua said to the people, “You are not able to serve the LORD. He is a holy God; he is a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins. <SUP id=en-NIV-6497 class=versenum>20</SUP> If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you.”
<SUP id=en-NIV-6498 class=versenum>21</SUP> But the people said to Joshua, “No! We will serve the LORD.”
<SUP id=en-NIV-6499 class=versenum>22</SUP> Then Joshua said, “You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen to serve the LORD.” “Yes, we are witnesses,” they replied.

The reason why Joshua was able to say his house would serve the Lord is because he knew the Truth. That there are no other Gods. The people just wouldn't listen to him. We know the outcome since God has reckoned all men sinners and only by His mercy and grace do we now obtain salvation. We need to see the big picture.

 

[Elijah674]

You say:
'The reason why Joshua was able to say his house would serve the Lord is because he knew the Truth. That there are no other Gods. The people just wouldn't listen to him. We know the outcome since God has reckoned all men sinners and only by His mercy and grace do we now obtain salvation. We need to see the big picture.'

We are miles apart! To me you have just said correctly... 'The people 'just' wouldn't listen to him.' (my underline) in total contradiction of your teaching!

Whatever??? Take Titus 3:9-11 from my free choice end!;) Nuff said!

--Elijah

 

[for_his_glory]

childeye you said : You first defined freewill as the ability and responsibility to obey God as do I. It is why I point out that men who disobey and are irresponsible do not have freewills. Contrary to that, the common teaching of Satan is that man is not a freewill lest he can disobey God or otherwise he is merely a slave. That's why he is the father of sin.

Respectfully, you then however contradict yourself by saying the bible teaches that every person with a moral capacity has the freedom of will to decide whether or not to obey God. How is that a contradiction? Because moral capacity is based upon the Word of God in a mans heart. Consequently men with little Love, love little. That is to say without the love of God in a mans heart he is immoral not moral. Do men choose to have this love and choose not to at their discretion? No they don't, for that is what the Gospel testifies to when it says it makes the seeing blind and the blind seeing.

First off I am a women not a man, but that's no problem, just wanted to let you know and I hold no contention with anyone who disagrees with me.

I'll try to make this as simple as I can. I know none of us has a moral character separate from the grace of God as we have all sinned and fallen short of His glory and need His grace, but there are many out there that claim to be moral by their own standards and even say they believe in God, but by their own choice (freewill) reject that of Gods will. I see choice and freewill to be the same thing. In a sense it's my will not Gods will that I freely choose to follow even though I know there is a God. (not talking about me here just making a statement) I hope this clears up what was meant by moral capacity.

 

[childeye]

childeye you said : You first defined freewill as the ability and responsibility to obey God as do I. It is why I point out that men who disobey and are irresponsible do not have freewills. Contrary to that, the common teaching of Satan is that man is not a freewill lest he can disobey God or otherwise he is merely a slave. That's why he is the father of sin.

Respectfully, you then however contradict yourself by saying the bible teaches that every person with a moral capacity has the freedom of will to decide whether or not to obey God. How is that a contradiction? Because moral capacity is based upon the Word of God in a mans heart. Consequently men with little Love, love little. That is to say without the love of God in a mans heart he is immoral not moral. Do men choose to have this love and choose not to at their discretion? No they don't, for that is what the Gospel testifies to when it says it makes the seeing blind and the blind seeing.

First off I am a women not a man, but that's no problem, just wanted to let you know and I hold no contention with anyone who disagrees with me.

I'll try to make this as simple as I can. I know none of us has a moral character separate from the grace of God as we have all sinned and fallen short of His glory and need His grace, but there are many out there that claim to be moral by their own standards and even say they believe in God, but by their own choice (freewill) reject that of Gods will. I see choice and freewill to be the same thing. In a sense it's my will not Gods will that I freely choose to follow even though I know there is a God. (not talking about me here just making a statement) I hope this clears up what was meant by moral capacity.

My apologies for assuming you were a man. I realy should have payed closer attention to the description under your avatar. I hope it shows I am not bias in that respect.

I am awre you equate choice with freewill which is why it may appear I am harping on it with you. My claim is it is misleading. Choice can be taken two ways, the objective point of view that there is a set of options men must navigate when presented with the Truth and lies that seek to obscure the Truth. And the subjective view that a man must decide which one is true as a moral imperative. We are deciding what is right and wrong in any moral decision we make.

The point of the Holy Spirit of Truth is to shed the light of Truth so that the decision is made clear. Only after seeing the Truth can men make a knowledgable decision. Consequently if one is convinced that righteousness is by works he believes it is up to him to perform righteousness which then confounds the Truth of the Gospel, that righteousness and salvation are a gift from God. Hence Paul dramatizes this by saying he is in chains to Christ not willing to give any credence to freewill but rather that he is a slave to Christ, not by his free choice but through revelation of the Truth. Such a choice is made because of the power of the Truth to overcome lies.

Hence God Jesus says that God reveals to mere children what he hides form the learned and scholarly. So as to put away the pride of men and the wisdom of this world. This essentially makes a mockery of freewill.

 

[childeye]

You say:
'The reason why Joshua was able to say his house would serve the Lord is because he knew the Truth. That there are no other Gods. The people just wouldn't listen to him. We know the outcome since God has reckoned all men sinners and only by His mercy and grace do we now obtain salvation. We need to see the big picture.'

We are miles apart! To me you have just said correctly... 'The people 'just' wouldn't listen to him.' (my underline) in total contradiction of your teaching!

Whatever??? Take Titus 3:9-11 from my free choice end!;) Nuff said!

--Elijah

Obviously you misunderstood what I said. It is clear Joshua told the people that they could not serve God because of their sin. <SUP>19</SUP> Joshua said to the people, “You are not able to serve the LORD. He is a holy God; he is a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins.

But they would not listen. <SUP>21</SUP> But the people said to Joshua, “No! We will serve the LORD.”

So where is the contradiction? Are you saying men rebel from a freewill? Apparantly you are unaware that would be condemnation against yourself.

 

[Mike]

totopic

There's some mighty good back & forth here in this thread, so much so, that it deserves its own thread!

Let's try to stay on topic.
​

 

[Classik]

Thank you, Mike
Satan could still visit heaven: by choice or by freewill?. Both

 

[for_his_glory]

As per Mikes request we are off topic so I will graciously bow out of the discussion between childeye and myself as their are many other post on freewill that shows both sides of what we have already discussed in the past.

 

[Classik]

As per Mikes request we are off topic so I will graciously bow out of the discussion between childeye and myself as their are many other post on freewill that shows both sides of what we have already discussed in the past.

And the winner is

 

[Elijah674]

As per Mikes request we are off topic so I will graciously bow out of the discussion between childeye and myself as their are many other post on freewill that shows both sides of what we have already discussed in the past.

me too! (and by my free/will;)) But was 'their' are many other post.. meaning there or their posts? If you meant 'their'? 'i' agree with you there as well!
And surely satan is at work on earth, not heaven today, huh?
--Elijah