The fall of Lucifer/Satan

[Titus]

I see the hawk is flying . yes indeed my friend stay glued in that bible .

 

[SamNI]

Is this speaking about Satan or the king of Tyre?

This isn't a cop-out on my part, but I think you’re asking the wrong question.

I’m definitely not an expert on Ezekiel, but I know that there are plenty of visions and metaphors, etc. in it – it’s characteristic of the book. So it is with chapter 28 where we get descriptions of “the king of Tyre” (a mortal man and not God [or a god], cast as profane from the mountain of God...).

Let’s be honest. Often scriptural language leaves us just scratching our heads. And that’s where the main problem lies. Often we like the thrill of plausibly decoding the mystery, but equally often it leads to a no-man’s-land of endless debates that are largely fruitless.

We face similar difficulties with the Revelation to John, and many of us remember the nonsense the Church has endured because of those who handled truth inaccurately and inappropriately (especially in the Hal Lindsey era 40-50 years ago when locusts were helicopters, and so on).

Eschatology (End Times issues) is in a particularly dreadful mess these days, largely because of how easily we all connect online and how low our standards are when meditating on God’s Word in spiritual maturity.

Does Ezekiel really tell us about the Fall of Satan? Is that who this passage is definitely about? Who can know for sure! Yes, we can join up the dots to get the picture we want to see, but the hard fact is, we can’t be totally sure. I’m certainly not convinced. The question I’d rather ask is, What is the entire book about – historically and in relation to our standing in Christ?

What do we know for sure, and what do we need to know generally as we faithfully abide in Christ and do God’s will in the power of the Holy Spirit? Really, to me your question is a non-question. Grey areas give rise to conjecture and guesswork isn’t particularly edifying in the long run. But...

Does it matter how and when the deceiver Satan fell? What happens to our enemy does indeed matter. At some time we know Satan “...the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him” (Revelation 12:9).

After Jesus sent out the 70 they joyfully returned to Him and said, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” In response Jesus said, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like lightning.” This partly suggests to me (please note!) that power over the enemy caused Satan to spectacularly fail and fall.

And this is true today. We wrestle with an enemy who tirelessly fires his evil weapons against us in an effort to destroy God’s work through the true Church. We resist him as those who are steadfast in the faith, fully submitted to God. If we aren’t steadfast in the faith we are vulnerable to the devil's intentions. He will get an advantage over us and outwit us. He wants to sift us like wheat. He wants to devour us.

It’s all about priorities. Profitable priorities. When we think about Satan let’s consider our authoritative standing in Christ. Let’s be determined not to be ignorant of his wicked schemes against us and against God’s truth.

 

[for_his_glory]

This isn't a cop-out on my part, but I think you’re asking the wrong question.

I’m definitely not an expert on Ezekiel, but I know that there are plenty of visions and metaphors, etc. in it – it’s characteristic of the book. So it is with chapter 28 where we get descriptions of “the king of Tyre” (a mortal man and not God [or a god], cast as profane from the mountain of God...).

Let’s be honest. Often scriptural language leaves us just scratching our heads. And that’s where the main problem lies. Often we like the thrill of plausibly decoding the mystery, but equally often it leads to a no-man’s-land of endless debates that are largely fruitless.

We face similar difficulties with the Revelation to John, and many of us remember the nonsense the Church has endured because of those who handled truth inaccurately and inappropriately (especially in the Hal Lindsey era 40-50 years ago when locusts were helicopters, and so on).

Eschatology (End Times issues) is in a particularly dreadful mess these days, largely because of how easily we all connect online and how low our standards are when meditating on God’s Word in spiritual maturity.

Does Ezekiel really tell us about the Fall of Satan? Is that who this passage is definitely about? Who can know for sure! Yes, we can join up the dots to get the picture we want to see, but the hard fact is, we can’t be totally sure. I’m certainly not convinced. The question I’d rather ask is, What is the entire book about – historically and in relation to our standing in Christ?

What do we know for sure, and what do we need to know generally as we faithfully abide in Christ and do God’s will in the power of the Holy Spirit? Really, to me your question is a non-question. Grey areas give rise to conjecture and guesswork isn’t particularly edifying in the long run. But...

Does it matter how and when the deceiver Satan fell? What happens to our enemy does indeed matter. At some time we know Satan “...the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him” (Revelation 12:9).

After Jesus sent out the 70 they joyfully returned to Him and said, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” In response Jesus said, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like lightning.” This partly suggests to me (please note!) that power over the enemy caused Satan to spectacularly fail and fall.

And this is true today. We wrestle with an enemy who tirelessly fires his evil weapons against us in an effort to destroy God’s work through the true Church. We resist him as those who are steadfast in the faith, fully submitted to God. If we aren’t steadfast in the faith we are vulnerable to the devil's intentions. He will get an advantage over us and outwit us. He wants to sift us like wheat. He wants to devour us.

It’s all about priorities. Profitable priorities. When we think about Satan let’s consider our authoritative standing in Christ. Let’s be determined not to be ignorant of his wicked schemes against us and against God’s truth.

Let me ask you a very simple question. Do you understand what a dual reference means?

In these verses the lament over the king of Tyre is made in reference to how Satan being in the garden of Eden, being an anointed cherub and being perfect when God set this angel in the garden until iniquity was found in him. What point and time did God ever set the king of Tyre in the garden of Eden and call him an anointed cherub. Think about that please.

Eze 28:13 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.
Eze 28:14 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.
Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

 

[eddif]

“SamNI said
After Jesus sent out the 70 they joyfully returned to Him and said, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” In response Jesus said, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like lightning.” This partly suggests to me (please note!) that power over the enemy caused Satan to spectacularly fail and fall.”

Ok I can see that the power of God over evil was mentioned.

I also see the disciples beginning to slap each other on their backs at their high position they have achieved. I can see the fact that because of the power they achieved Satan will begin to tempt them to think of themselves more highly than they ought to think.

Luke 10:20 kjv
20. Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

You see the power but do you see who gave the power and who should be congratulated.

Very close to this subject is replacement theology. The Gentile Christians begin to congratulate each other on their position. So now they could attract either Satan when released, or the pride of Satan to tempt them.

“SamTI also said
It’s all about priorities. Profitable priorities. When we think about Satan let’s consider our authoritative standing in Christ. Let’s be determined not to be ignorant of his wicked schemes against us and against God’s truth.”

Sounds like the church is seeing their position of authority. Then the Normal Christianity bunch should exalt Christ Jesus and not see their high position.

We all (probably me especially) need to see where and when pride tempts us. I often tend to think:
(I am a tongue talking Holy Ghost filled son of the living God). Very close or worse than the disciples statement. So bringing up the fall of Lucifer is something i
Need to hear.

Kenneth E. Hagen once had a radio program (in the 70s ?).
First time I ever heard the power of God explained. I also heard Raymond Beard of Mississippi on the radio. I tend toward that group (never joined). These two preachers did not start out in heresy. We do not start out thinking of ourselves as Sons of God. I went to a Sons of God meeting one time. Scared me big time, but over time that spirit of exaltation can sneak up on you. Also that (look at me I am so humble) can hit too. My wife makes sure I am reminded of that pitfall. My Mississippi redneck can and does cause battles inside me. So do we need to be aware of the fall of Lucifer? I vote yes I do.

Ok I think I repeated For_His_Glory duality statement. Might should have left it up to everyone alone.

Mississippi redneck (often a problem)
eddif

 

[SamNI]

Let me ask you a very simple question...

"Dual reference" then, (or multiple references for that matter?), allows the reader to consider more than one possibility? Fair enough. But cryptic language in Scripture notoriously leads to speculation and bias. Historically, symbolism and metaphor in Scripture has caused absurd notions and guesswork. So at the very least we should be cautious, shouldn't we.

You emphasise (overemphasise?) the Book of Ezekial's terminology that fits your bias. I understand that. I could overemphasise a bias too by repeatedly pointing out that this "ruler of Tyre" is described as a mortal, a fragile man who could be killed. To stay balanced it's perfectly reasonable to take that into account.

However, the truth is, I can't be entirely sure about the meaning of the symbolism here, and neither can you. We find symbolism elsewhere in the same book. Personally I'm disinclined to see this ruler as more than a man. It's wise not to be dogmatic.

But that's not my main point. My difficulty is with those who teach biased opinions. The somewhat silly misuse of Isaiah 14 is a very good example of this. People with a bias stubbornly call the devil Lucifer despite clear evidence to the contrary. (Again, maybe this passage has a secondary meaning that references Satan. I don't think it does, but we can't be dogmatic.)

My bias is against the dogmatism that ignores reasonable doubt.

And on a separate point, our authority over Satan is in Christ alone. The 70 didn't achieve any power. The enemy was defeated because of faith in His Name. Without Him we can accomplish nothing. When we fail to abide in Him we are working in the flesh. When we are fully submitted in faith our enemy is defeated because Christ came to destroy the enemy's work.

 

[eddif]

"Dual reference" then, (or multiple references for that matter?), allows the reader to consider more than one possibility? Fair enough. But cryptic language in Scripture notoriously leads to speculation and bias. Historically, symbolism and metaphor in Scripture has caused absurd notions and guesswork. So at the very least we should be cautious, shouldn't we.

You emphasise (overemphasise?) the Book of Ezekial's terminology that fits your bias. I understand that. I could overemphasise a bias too by repeatedly pointing out that this "ruler of Tyre" is described as a mortal, a fragile man who could be killed. To stay balanced it's perfectly reasonable to take that into account.

However, the truth is, I can't be entirely sure about the meaning of the symbolism here, and neither can you. We find symbolism elsewhere in the same book. Personally I'm disinclined to see this ruler as more than a man. It's wise not to be dogmatic.

But that's not my main point. My difficulty is with those who teach biased opinions. The somewhat silly misuse of Isaiah 14 is a very good example of this. People with a bias stubbornly call the devil Lucifer despite clear evidence to the contrary. (Again, maybe this passage has a secondary meaning that references Satan. I don't think it does, but we can't be dogmatic.)

My bias is against the dogmatism that ignores reasonable doubt.

And on a separate point, our authority over Satan is in Christ alone. The 70 didn't achieve any power. The enemy was defeated because of faith in His Name. Without Him we can accomplish nothing. When we fail to abide in Him we are working in the flesh. When we are fully submitted in faith our enemy is defeated because Christ came to destroy the enemy's work.

1 Timothy 5:17 kjv
17. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
18. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward

The point is for us to realize that a good elder is worthy of respect and pay.
Thus two methods are used. The hidden OT scripture and the open statement of fact.
The mention of the ox does not mean totally be h
Kind to animals, but pay the preacher.

The ox:
Clean animal
Split hoof. (Gently breaks seed coat)
Four stomachs (digests plant material some other animals can not digest).

Bishop takes scripture and reveals inner food ( the congregation then works at their particular need of information). Not private interpretation, but a concept that can be used in multiple areas. Family life, work, religious obligations, etc.

The parable of the sower takes ground and raises it to mens hearts. Seed is raised to Word of God.

Symbolism is meant to be studied. The truth is hidden.
Romans 1:18-20

Our potential possibility of fall is seen in OT scriptures.
1 Corinthians 10:12 kjv
12. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

If we see Israel fall, we are warned to watch our own selves.

Yes symbolism can be misunderstood. The idea is to raise common statements to the highest correct understanding.
We are held accountable of / for hidden truth.

eddif

 

[eddif]

Let’s be honest. Often scriptural language leaves us just scratching our heads. And that’s where the main problem lies. Often we like the thrill of plausibly decoding the mystery, but equally often it leads to a no-man’s-land of endless debates that are largely fruitless.

We do not get revelation from scratching our heads.
We are to be fruitful.
James 1:5 kjv
5. If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

I wonder if this is a good statement? Wisdom is how to understand enough knowledge to apply it.

Auto mechanics taught me this ( with Bible help).

Knowledge - to know something is wrong or right
Wisdom - what needs to be done for repair or ok for use
Understanding - how to repair without destroying (cars or people)
Love - how to do the work without cussing and throwing wrenches or scripture verses in anger.

We do not add to or take away from scripture. We all have to realize we are one keyboard / touch
screen stroke away from error. Regretfully sometimes I have to admit error / sin.

eddif

 

[for_his_glory]

"Dual reference" then, (or multiple references for that matter?), allows the reader to consider more than one possibility? Fair enough. But cryptic language in Scripture notoriously leads to speculation and bias. Historically, symbolism and metaphor in Scripture has caused absurd notions and guesswork. So at the very least we should be cautious, shouldn't we.

You emphasise (overemphasise?) the Book of Ezekial's terminology that fits your bias. I understand that. I could overemphasise a bias too by repeatedly pointing out that this "ruler of Tyre" is described as a mortal, a fragile man who could be killed. To stay balanced it's perfectly reasonable to take that into account.

However, the truth is, I can't be entirely sure about the meaning of the symbolism here, and neither can you. We find symbolism elsewhere in the same book. Personally I'm disinclined to see this ruler as more than a man. It's wise not to be dogmatic.

But that's not my main point. My difficulty is with those who teach biased opinions. The somewhat silly misuse of Isaiah 14 is a very good example of this. People with a bias stubbornly call the devil Lucifer despite clear evidence to the contrary. (Again, maybe this passage has a secondary meaning that references Satan. I don't think it does, but we can't be dogmatic.)

My bias is against the dogmatism that ignores reasonable doubt.

And on a separate point, our authority over Satan is in Christ alone. The 70 didn't achieve any power. The enemy was defeated because of faith in His Name. Without Him we can accomplish nothing. When we fail to abide in Him we are working in the flesh. When we are fully submitted in faith our enemy is defeated because Christ came to destroy the enemy's work.

There is no cryptic language in scripture as the Holy Spirit reveals all truth, but it does remain a mystery to those who only speculate, especially those who are indoctrinated within their own church doctrine. There is a lot of symbolism as in Revelation, but even then the Holy Spirit reveals the literal of the symbolic. Jesus used a lot of symbolism and dual references in the parables He taught. It's up to each one of us to Spiritually discern what we hear to be truth or error, 1 John 4:1-6.

I am not bias, except when it comes to false doctrines of Satan who works through those to deceive us.

Are you saying then that the king of Tyre was in the garden of Eden and was a cherub? Think about that carefully. I never said anything about the king of Tyre being anything else but a man that God lamented over

Is not reasonable doubt nothing more than a carnal knowledge? When you go around pointing fingers at others for how they understand scripture, just remember that three of those fingers point back to you.

All power and authority is given to us by the grace of God through Christ Jesus who works in us and through us by God's Holy Spirit.

I will give you a fair warning as within your post you have violated the ToS 1.1, 1.3 and 1.5 in telling me that I am bias and dogmatic. Normally your post would have been deleted, but I want to show you that we do not talk to others like this here at CF and would suggest you go back and read the Terms of Service (ToS) you agreed upon when you became a member.

 

[eddif]

I wonder if this is a good statement? Wisdom is how to understand enough knowledge to apply it.

My statement failed.
A word of knowledge comes from God
A word of wisdom comes from God
I can work with knowledge, but the answer comes from God and not intellect.
Sorry.
eddif

 

[SamNI]

There is no cryptic language in scripture as the Holy Spirit reveals all truth, but it does remain a mystery to those who only speculate, especially those who are indoctrinated within their own church doctrine. There is a lot of symbolism as in Revelation, but even then the Holy Spirit reveals the literal of the symbolic. Jesus used a lot of symbolism and dual references in the parables He taught. It's up to each one of us to Spiritually discern what we hear to be truth or error, 1 John 4:1-6.

I am not bias, except when it comes to false doctrines of Satan who works through those to deceive us.

Are you saying then that the king of Tyre was in the garden of Eden and was a cherub? Think about that carefully. I never said anything about the king of Tyre being anything else but a man that God lamented over

Is not reasonable doubt nothing more than a carnal knowledge? When you go around pointing fingers at others for how they understand scripture, just remember that three of those fingers point back to you.

All power and authority is given to us by the grace of God through Christ Jesus who works in us and through us by God's Holy Spirit.

I will give you a fair warning as within your post you have violated the ToS 1.1, 1.3 and 1.5 in telling me that I am bias and dogmatic. Normally your post would have been deleted, but I want to show you that we do not talk to others like this here at CF and would suggest you go back and read the Terms of Service (ToS) you agreed upon when you became a member.

Hello "For His Glory". I do sincerely apologise for not choosing more acceptable language in my previous post. It wasn’t in my mind at all to insult you in particular by saying you have a dogmatic bias. I'm confident we would agree that a bias isn’t always harmful or a distortion of truth. I have a bias (“a special influence that sways one's thinking”) for the NASB translation but I’m most definitely biased against The Passion Translation. Anyway, I do hope you will allow me space to respond to your civil post?

I'm sure you would agree that among genuine believers Scriptures like Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 have always been open to interpretation. For example, I’m not a Calvinist, but you may have read Calvin's somewhat blunt views on Isaiah 14: “...it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.” “...very gross ignorance… useless fables”. Strong language! Yet there are many true believers who equally strongly disagree with him. Who is right? They can’t both be right.

Earlier I referenced Dr Gentry’s interesting talk where he non-dogmatically offers a view different to your own (and, in fact, more in line with mine). He acknowledges your general view of Ezekiel 28, but doesn't share it. His argumentation on The Fall of Satan is reasonable and fair. But it’s his opinion. It’s his understanding of the passage in Ezekiel — it isn’t offered as irrefutable teaching.

The reason why he has a different view is because of the mysterious and ambiguous nature of this passage of Scripture (and indeed the book as a whole) with its symbolic and/or metaphoric references to the ruler of Tyre. Allegorical and figurative terminology has often caused differing emphases and interpretations. Where possible honest biblical hermeneutics aims at a clear and reverent understanding of God’s revelation while acknowledging that full agreement is not always possible.

I’ve had a high view of Scripture for decades since coming to Christ, believing it to be the very God-breathed truths of God in the original languages. To say that a passage of Scripture is cryptic isn't at all disrespectful and it’s not inaccurate either. In a slightly different context consider the famous "666" passage for example, or indeed other references in the Book of Revelation, too many to mention here in detail, like 7 mountains on which a woman sits, and so on. There have been many colourful speculations about this 666 reference and the mark of the beast. This passage’s cryptic descriptions give rise to unprofitable speculations. Another area of speculation would be, Who were the Nephilim in Genesis 6? No one can be 100% sure, yet I’ve personally corresponded with those who told me they do know for sure!

So not all Scripture can be authoritatively and definitively expounded. To do so can indeed amount to a “dogmatism that ignores reasonable doubt”. And of course there are more generalised debates about Scripture passages that prove differing opinions can’t be avoided, such as, Can true believers lose their salvation? and, What is the unpardonable sin? and, Do we go to be with Christ the instant we die? And of course historically there are instances where words of Scripture have been pulled from their context and to this day are used to justify anti-biblical teaching (John 6:53, 54, for example). I recently heard this very position being taught in a talk denying the final authority of Scripture.

So, when I use the word "cryptic" in reference to Scripture I mean deep, mystifying, puzzling, unclear, etc. Deep and unclear metaphor in Scripture will inevitably lead to a variety of opinions. Maturity demands that we know when we are expressing an opinion rather than perfectly clear revelation. But most importantly, it needs to be categorically emphasised here that the vast majority of Scripture is perfectly clear to everyone and is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2nd Timothy 3:16–17).

As to specifics, no, I’m not saying the king of Tyre was in the garden of Eden and was a cherub. Of course not. No matter how carefully I think about that statement I cannot agree with it.

However, and this is the point you seem to be misunderstanding, I also cannot say for sure that our “adversary has many names which include: Lucifer…” Nor can I categorically assert that “Ezekiel 28:12-15 identifies an angelic being who is called the anointed cherub… we can only assume that Lucifer/Satan was one of the cherubs by the description in those scripture… as Lucifer was set in the garden iniquity was soon found in him…” The reason why I can’t personally stand up for this general position is because the passages in question are open to debate. And they are in fact often debated.

So, I do hope you won’t ban me from your forum. I’ll most definitely try to consider my choice of words in the future.

Regards,

Sam

 

[eddif]

1 Corinthians 1:19 kjv
19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

This passage continues about the wisdom of God
I pressed post to quickly. I am in edit now. More later.

eddif

 

[eddif]

Hello "For His Glory". I do sincerely apologise for not choosing more acceptable language in my previous post. It wasn’t in my mind at all to insult you in particular by saying you have a dogmatic bias. I'm confident we would agree that a bias isn’t always harmful or a distortion of truth. I have a bias (“a special influence that sways one's thinking”) for the NASB translation but I’m most definitely biased against The Passion Translation. Anyway, I do hope you will allow me space to respond to your civil post?

I'm sure you would agree that among genuine believers Scriptures like Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 have always been open to interpretation. For example, I’m not a Calvinist, but you may have read Calvin's somewhat blunt views on Isaiah 14: “...it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.” “...very gross ignorance… useless fables”. Strong language! Yet there are many true believers who equally strongly disagree with him. Who is right? They can’t both be right.

Earlier I referenced Dr Gentry’s interesting talk where he non-dogmatically offers a view different to your own (and, in fact, more in line with mine). He acknowledges your general view of Ezekiel 28, but doesn't share it. His argumentation on The Fall of Satan is reasonable and fair. But it’s his opinion. It’s his understanding of the passage in Ezekiel — it isn’t offered as irrefutable teaching.

The reason why he has a different view is because of the mysterious and ambiguous nature of this passage of Scripture (and indeed the book as a whole) with its symbolic and/or metaphoric references to the ruler of Tyre. Allegorical and figurative terminology has often caused differing emphases and interpretations. Where possible honest biblical hermeneutics aims at a clear and reverent understanding of God’s revelation while acknowledging that full agreement is not always possible.

I’ve had a high view of Scripture for decades since coming to Christ, believing it to be the very God-breathed truths of God in the original languages. To say that a passage of Scripture is cryptic isn't at all disrespectful and it’s not inaccurate either. In a slightly different context consider the famous "666" passage for example, or indeed other references in the Book of Revelation, too many to mention here in detail, like 7 mountains on which a woman sits, and so on. There have been many colourful speculations about this 666 reference and the mark of the beast. This passage’s cryptic descriptions give rise to unprofitable speculations. Another area of speculation would be, Who were the Nephilim in Genesis 6? No one can be 100% sure, yet I’ve personally corresponded with those who told me they do know for sure!

So not all Scripture can be authoritatively and definitively expounded. To do so can indeed amount to a “dogmatism that ignores reasonable doubt”. And of course there are more generalised debates about Scripture passages that prove differing opinions can’t be avoided, such as, Can true believers lose their salvation? and, What is the unpardonable sin? and, Do we go to be with Christ the instant we die? And of course historically there are instances where words of Scripture have been pulled from their context and to this day are used to justify anti-biblical teaching (John 6:53, 54, for example). I recently heard this very position being taught in a talk denying the final authority of Scripture.

So, when I use the word "cryptic" in reference to Scripture I mean deep, mystifying, puzzling, unclear, etc. Deep and unclear metaphor in Scripture will inevitably lead to a variety of opinions. Maturity demands that we know when we are expressing an opinion rather than perfectly clear revelation. But most importantly, it needs to be categorically emphasised here that the vast majority of Scripture is perfectly clear to everyone and is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2nd Timothy 3:16–17).

As to specifics, no, I’m not saying the king of Tyre was in the garden of Eden and was a cherub. Of course not. No matter how carefully I think about that statement I cannot agree with it.

However, and this is the point you seem to be misunderstanding, I also cannot say for sure that our “adversary has many names which include: Lucifer…” Nor can I categorically assert that “Ezekiel 28:12-15 identifies an angelic being who is called the anointed cherub… we can only assume that Lucifer/Satan was one of the cherubs by the description in those scripture… as Lucifer was set in the garden iniquity was soon found in him…” The reason why I can’t personally stand up for this general position is because the passages in question are open to debate. And they are in fact often debated.

So, I do hope you won’t ban me from your forum. I’ll most definitely try to consider my choice of words in the future.

Regards,

Sam

Sam
I finally clicked on your link about Normal Christianity

So if I read some of this and respond, I may get a warning to behave. I have gone through (more or less) being:
Baptist
Presbyterian
Charismatic
Methodist

I dabbled in:
Online with CARM
Online with Lutherans
Online with VW TDI ( I thought I was doing a service for humanity)

So I am rejected most everywhere I have been. I guess I have tried to build on some of the beliefs of where I was at the time. I probably still try to fit in.
But
When I start on symbolism I suddenly really do not fit anywhere, unless I get it correct. You are posting on a thread that is about reality / symbolism / truth. Those here probably struggle with each other already. The struggle here is more for corporate truth. Do we always get there perfectly? No. I think we try not here to struggle against flesh and blood. Are we flesh and blood? Yes. Are we trying to get past who we are? Well we can be self deluded, but we seek to be after God’s heart. We are as diverse as individuals. The body of Christ is diverse.

Now this is a question. When Israel was leaving the wilderness and headed toward the promised land, some wanted to stay beyond Jordan.. Some wanted to posses the land. All took part in the first battles.

In symbolism crossing Jordan is not just a history lesson. Crossing Jordan is about a lifestyle. The gants are not really just about giants. The alliances with the people in the promised land are not just about a certain people. The kings are not just about physical kings. There are lessons to be learned.

eddif

 

[for_his_glory]

Hello "For His Glory". I do sincerely apologise for not choosing more acceptable language in my previous post. It wasn’t in my mind at all to insult you in particular by saying you have a dogmatic bias. I'm confident we would agree that a bias isn’t always harmful or a distortion of truth. I have a bias (“a special influence that sways one's thinking”) for the NASB translation but I’m most definitely biased against The Passion Translation. Anyway, I do hope you will allow me space to respond to your civil post?

I'm sure you would agree that among genuine believers Scriptures like Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 have always been open to interpretation. For example, I’m not a Calvinist, but you may have read Calvin's somewhat blunt views on Isaiah 14: “...it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.” “...very gross ignorance… useless fables”. Strong language! Yet there are many true believers who equally strongly disagree with him. Who is right? They can’t both be right.

Earlier I referenced Dr Gentry’s interesting talk where he non-dogmatically offers a view different to your own (and, in fact, more in line with mine). He acknowledges your general view of Ezekiel 28, but doesn't share it. His argumentation on The Fall of Satan is reasonable and fair. But it’s his opinion. It’s his understanding of the passage in Ezekiel — it isn’t offered as irrefutable teaching.

The reason why he has a different view is because of the mysterious and ambiguous nature of this passage of Scripture (and indeed the book as a whole) with its symbolic and/or metaphoric references to the ruler of Tyre. Allegorical and figurative terminology has often caused differing emphases and interpretations. Where possible honest biblical hermeneutics aims at a clear and reverent understanding of God’s revelation while acknowledging that full agreement is not always possible.

I’ve had a high view of Scripture for decades since coming to Christ, believing it to be the very God-breathed truths of God in the original languages. To say that a passage of Scripture is cryptic isn't at all disrespectful and it’s not inaccurate either. In a slightly different context consider the famous "666" passage for example, or indeed other references in the Book of Revelation, too many to mention here in detail, like 7 mountains on which a woman sits, and so on. There have been many colourful speculations about this 666 reference and the mark of the beast. This passage’s cryptic descriptions give rise to unprofitable speculations. Another area of speculation would be, Who were the Nephilim in Genesis 6? No one can be 100% sure, yet I’ve personally corresponded with those who told me they do know for sure!

So not all Scripture can be authoritatively and definitively expounded. To do so can indeed amount to a “dogmatism that ignores reasonable doubt”. And of course there are more generalised debates about Scripture passages that prove differing opinions can’t be avoided, such as, Can true believers lose their salvation? and, What is the unpardonable sin? and, Do we go to be with Christ the instant we die? And of course historically there are instances where words of Scripture have been pulled from their context and to this day are used to justify anti-biblical teaching (John 6:53, 54, for example). I recently heard this very position being taught in a talk denying the final authority of Scripture.

So, when I use the word "cryptic" in reference to Scripture I mean deep, mystifying, puzzling, unclear, etc. Deep and unclear metaphor in Scripture will inevitably lead to a variety of opinions. Maturity demands that we know when we are expressing an opinion rather than perfectly clear revelation. But most importantly, it needs to be categorically emphasised here that the vast majority of Scripture is perfectly clear to everyone and is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2nd Timothy 3:16–17).

As to specifics, no, I’m not saying the king of Tyre was in the garden of Eden and was a cherub. Of course not. No matter how carefully I think about that statement I cannot agree with it.

However, and this is the point you seem to be misunderstanding, I also cannot say for sure that our “adversary has many names which include: Lucifer…” Nor can I categorically assert that “Ezekiel 28:12-15 identifies an angelic being who is called the anointed cherub… we can only assume that Lucifer/Satan was one of the cherubs by the description in those scripture… as Lucifer was set in the garden iniquity was soon found in him…” The reason why I can’t personally stand up for this general position is because the passages in question are open to debate. And they are in fact often debated.

So, I do hope you won’t ban me from your forum. I’ll most definitely try to consider my choice of words in the future.

Regards,

Sam

Thank you for your apology as I appreciate that. I will not give you any warning points at this time.

What some read and understand in scripture is not always seen and understood by others by how they study as this is why we discuss the indifferences. It makes no one right or wrong, but that they have to search out truth for themselves. If error is made the Holy Spirit is quick to send correction and we need to be opened for correction.

I never ask anyone to agree with me, but to take the scriptures I give and consider my understanding as they study for themselves. Sometimes we do not see certain things until someone brings a new light to things we did not understand before. So many read a whole chapter and only get a jest of what is written, But when you read a chapter word by word, verse by verse, cross referencing OT with NT and history throughout the Biblical ages, then you will see the full understanding as the Holy Spirit reveals all truth.

It takes me a very long time to study and write these articles, like in the OP, as I have researched and written over 100 articles and written two books over the last 20 years, but only use them in the forums. I have been corrected many times in here as the Holy Spirit works through those to correct me that have more Spiritual knowledge showing me things I thought I understood, but had it wrong. We all have to be teachable, but also need to learn how to Spiritually discern that of what we are being taught in order to know truth from error. There is no harm in disagreeing with each other as we are always learning, but when disagreements turn into division then there is no unity of the Spirit.