Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
What gave Satan the thought to rebel against God?
- Thread starter Bubba
- Start date
Oats
Member
I've always wondered this , though no one has been able to answer it
mainly because i didn't ask:bigfrown
lol
nice thread
Oats,
I think there is an obvious answer to this question, but Christendom is stuck on the presupposition that Satan was created without evil. If you think out of the box, Scripture does address this issue.
Bubba
Mike
Member
Bubba, if you have something to suggest that scripture speaks to rebellion after His Kingdom is restored, I'd be very interested to see it.
Rev 21
"1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
God knows the plan, right?
No, I am not suggesting that there will be rebellion after the Kingdom is restored; I am suggesting that the majority view that Satan at some point was not evil is faulty.
Bubba
Mike
Member
Bubba, it sounds like you were suggesting a rebellion could happen after the Kingdom is restored. I'm not trying to pin you down or be argumentative.
I may have misinterpreted what you said, or you may not have phrased the OP the way you intended. It seems pretty clear what you were suggesting "could" happen and that we can find support for this in scripture. 
Bubba, it sounds like you were suggesting a rebellion could happen after the Kingdom is restored. I'm not trying to pin you down or be argumentative.
Mike,
I was trying to take this whole idea of Satan at one point created sinless (suppose by orthodoxy); though in the full presence of God and yet is able nonetheless to fall from heaven from an evil act of rebellion. Which brings at least two logical questions to mind.
1. Where did the evil thought originate from?
2. Can it happen again to the redeemed?
Bubba
Bubba,
Satan or Lucifer as he was formerly known from what I have come to understand was the one in which brought about sin due to his own personal pride. For it was he who first chose to rebel against God and was then cast down to earth. Since then Satan, the deceiver, has been doing simply that..... trying to deceive God's children and win them away from their loving Heavenly Father.
As to it happening again to the redeemed.....could you be a bit more specific?
Satan or Lucifer as he was formerly known from what I have come to understand was the one in which brought about sin due to his own personal pride. For it was he who first chose to rebel against God and was then cast down to earth. Since then Satan, the deceiver, has been doing simply that..... trying to deceive God's children and win them away from their loving Heavenly Father.
As to it happening again to the redeemed.....could you be a bit more specific?
You may be reading too much of your own presupposition to the Isaiah 14 passage, especially if you are using the name "Lucifer" from the text. I do not believe this passage is about Satan at all. I do not believe the redeemed can actually sin in the next realm; I am just presenting the argument that there is a good possibility that Satan was created evil from the very beginning.
Bubba
S
sherri2
Guest
Everything that God does is good. Why would he deliberatly create someone evil who had no choice?
"How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!
That means fallen from a good state.
For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.'
Pride.
God is love. 1 John 4:8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
"How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!
That means fallen from a good state.
For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.'
Pride.
God is love. 1 John 4:8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
S
sherri2
Guest
Luke 10:18 And He said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Lucifer means 'light-bearer' - why would God give someone evil that name?
Satan means 'adversary'. God changed peoples names in the bible according to their destiny, defining who they were.
'Simon' for example means 'reed' something flexible that can be blown around. Think about his passion but inability to come through in crucial moments. Then God changed his name to 'Peter' which means 'rock'. Something stable and depenable. And said 'on this rock' this solid foundation, I will build my church. Peter could be trusted to stand up under pressure.
God also changed Abrams name (which means 'exalted father') to 'Abraham' which means the father of a multitude, because God was going to create the nation of Israel out of him, even though his wife was unable to bear children.
God calls things what they are.
Gods own names define who he is, and once 'lucifer' fell from heaven, he was no longer a 'light bearer'. He became an 'adversary' to God and his creation. Hence his name.
I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Lucifer means 'light-bearer' - why would God give someone evil that name?
Satan means 'adversary'. God changed peoples names in the bible according to their destiny, defining who they were.
'Simon' for example means 'reed' something flexible that can be blown around. Think about his passion but inability to come through in crucial moments. Then God changed his name to 'Peter' which means 'rock'. Something stable and depenable. And said 'on this rock' this solid foundation, I will build my church. Peter could be trusted to stand up under pressure.
God also changed Abrams name (which means 'exalted father') to 'Abraham' which means the father of a multitude, because God was going to create the nation of Israel out of him, even though his wife was unable to bear children.
God calls things what they are.
Gods own names define who he is, and once 'lucifer' fell from heaven, he was no longer a 'light bearer'. He became an 'adversary' to God and his creation. Hence his name.
Thank you Sherri, you took what I was trying to say and supported it with the scripture I was trying to refer to. In addition you explained it in ways far better than I ever could. Very enlightening.
Sherri2
I think if you take the time to read this article, you will readily understand that your position is easily shown to have difficulties. Bubba
Part 1
"Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12-17
Translation and Ideology
By Dennis Bratcher:
"The name Lucifer has often been understood to be another name for the devil or the satan. This identification has a long history in the church, going back to at least the fourth century. Its origin is actually from a passage in the Old Testament from the book of Isaiah that, to some, speaks of a being cast out of heaven because of pride. Since some people see a reference to the devil being cast out of heaven in the New Testament (Rev 12:9-12; cf. Lk 10:18), they assumed that the Isaiah passage referred to the same thing.
The passage (NRSV): 14:12
How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! 13 You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north; 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High.’ 15 But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit. 16 Those who see you will stare at you, and ponder over you: ‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, 17 who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home?’
In the King James translation, verse 12 reads:
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!
Here is where we find the name Lucifer. The term Lucifer was popularized in English from this King James translation. However, the name does not come from the Hebrew or even from the Greek translation (Septuagint), but from the fourth century AD Latin translation of this verse:
quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.
But this is not quite as obvious as it sounds even in Latin. The term Lucifer in fourth century Latin was a name for Venus, especially as the morning star. The Latin word Lucifer is composed of two words: lux, or in the genitive form used lucis, (meaning "light") and ferre, which means "to bear" or "to bring." So, the word Lucifer means bearer of light. The same word is used in other places in the Latin Vulgate to translate Hebrew terms that mean "bright," especially associated with the sky:
Job 11:17: And your life will be brighter than the noonday; its darkness will be like the morning.
2 Peter 1:19: You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
This reflects how the Latin word Lucifer was used in classic Roman poetry, such as this passage from Virgil (Georgics, III, 324-325):
Luciferi primo cum sidere frigida rura
carpamus, dum mane novum, dum gramina canent
Let us hasten, when first the Morning Star appears,
To the cool pastures, while the day is new, while the grass is dewy.
The term also occurs in the plural (luciferum) in Job 38:32 to refer to an astral constellation. Other forms of the word are used in similar ways to refer to light or the stars. This reflects the Greek (Septuagint) translation’s use of heosphoros, "morning star" to translate the Hebrew of Isaiah 14:12.
There is some debate about the exact origin of the original Hebrew word in Isaiah 14:12 (helel). The strongest possibility is that it comes from a verbal root that means "to shine brightly," as well as "to offer praise" (where we get the phrase hallelu yah). In any case, the noun form is the Hebrew term for the morning star, in most cases the planet Venus. Both the second century BC Greek translation in the Septuagint, and the fourth century AD Latin translation in the Latin Vulgate understand this to be the meaning of the Hebrew word helel.
So, how did we get from Venus, the morning star, to Lucifer being associated with the devil, especially since that term is used in positive ways even in the New Testament? Well, if we begin with some New Testament passages and incorrectly assume that using the New Testament along with a lot of accumulated tradition is the best way to interpret the Old Testament, then add some of our assumptions, it is not a long trip at all. "
I think if you take the time to read this article, you will readily understand that your position is easily shown to have difficulties. Bubba
Part 1
"Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12-17
Translation and Ideology
By Dennis Bratcher:
"The name Lucifer has often been understood to be another name for the devil or the satan. This identification has a long history in the church, going back to at least the fourth century. Its origin is actually from a passage in the Old Testament from the book of Isaiah that, to some, speaks of a being cast out of heaven because of pride. Since some people see a reference to the devil being cast out of heaven in the New Testament (Rev 12:9-12; cf. Lk 10:18), they assumed that the Isaiah passage referred to the same thing.
The passage (NRSV): 14:12
How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! 13 You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north; 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High.’ 15 But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit. 16 Those who see you will stare at you, and ponder over you: ‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, 17 who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home?’
In the King James translation, verse 12 reads:
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!
Here is where we find the name Lucifer. The term Lucifer was popularized in English from this King James translation. However, the name does not come from the Hebrew or even from the Greek translation (Septuagint), but from the fourth century AD Latin translation of this verse:
quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.
But this is not quite as obvious as it sounds even in Latin. The term Lucifer in fourth century Latin was a name for Venus, especially as the morning star. The Latin word Lucifer is composed of two words: lux, or in the genitive form used lucis, (meaning "light") and ferre, which means "to bear" or "to bring." So, the word Lucifer means bearer of light. The same word is used in other places in the Latin Vulgate to translate Hebrew terms that mean "bright," especially associated with the sky:
Job 11:17: And your life will be brighter than the noonday; its darkness will be like the morning.
2 Peter 1:19: You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
This reflects how the Latin word Lucifer was used in classic Roman poetry, such as this passage from Virgil (Georgics, III, 324-325):
Luciferi primo cum sidere frigida rura
carpamus, dum mane novum, dum gramina canent
Let us hasten, when first the Morning Star appears,
To the cool pastures, while the day is new, while the grass is dewy.
The term also occurs in the plural (luciferum) in Job 38:32 to refer to an astral constellation. Other forms of the word are used in similar ways to refer to light or the stars. This reflects the Greek (Septuagint) translation’s use of heosphoros, "morning star" to translate the Hebrew of Isaiah 14:12.
There is some debate about the exact origin of the original Hebrew word in Isaiah 14:12 (helel). The strongest possibility is that it comes from a verbal root that means "to shine brightly," as well as "to offer praise" (where we get the phrase hallelu yah). In any case, the noun form is the Hebrew term for the morning star, in most cases the planet Venus. Both the second century BC Greek translation in the Septuagint, and the fourth century AD Latin translation in the Latin Vulgate understand this to be the meaning of the Hebrew word helel.
So, how did we get from Venus, the morning star, to Lucifer being associated with the devil, especially since that term is used in positive ways even in the New Testament? Well, if we begin with some New Testament passages and incorrectly assume that using the New Testament along with a lot of accumulated tradition is the best way to interpret the Old Testament, then add some of our assumptions, it is not a long trip at all. "
Part 2
In 2 Corinthians 11:14, Paul writes about false apostles:
And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
And in Luke 10:18-19, at the return of the 70 as they comment on their success, Jesus says:
And he said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you."
So, without ever stopping to examine either of those passages to see what was being said in them, and what was meant by the references, we could conclude that the devil/the satan is somehow associated with light and the sky.
If we then add the passage from Revelation 12 about the devil/satan/red dragon/serpent the symbols begin to run together, again before we have done any real study on any of these passages separately to see what each of them is saying. In Revelation 12 the red dragon with seven heads appears in the sky, and his tail sweeps down a third of the stars to earth, and is then later cast down to the earth along with his angels. Of course, at this point, a great many assumptions are introduced into the reading even of the Revelation passage, even though this is obviously extremely figurative language; we just assume what it means.
By adding these three passages together without regard to context, and read them as if they were all speaking in the same way about the same thing to make the same point, we can conclude that we have here a jigsaw picture of a long ago historical event described in great detail (but of course we have to put the pieces together from various bits scattered through literature written 800 years apart!).
Then, if we take that assumption about the meaning of all these texts, and the assumption that adding texts together is the way to understand them (a drastic perversion of the "Scripture interprets Scripture" principle!), and bring that back to the Isaiah text, then it is very easy to reach the conclusion that Isaiah is also describing the same event. There are similar metaphors of light, stars, conflict, and being cast down. Earlier translations (KJV) mistakenly took the Hebrew term sheol in verse 15 as "hell" (in Hebrew it is simply the place where the dead go, a metaphor for death, specifically burial; see Sheol, Hell, and the Dead), which is another piece of the puzzle. So of course, since there is no mention of the "devil" or the "satan" in Isaiah, "Lucifer" must be the name Isaiah uses for him! So, Isaiah is talking about the devil being cast out of heaven!
This is the position that prevailed throughout much of the history of the church until the time of the Reformation and the Enlightenment, when we began asking more direct questions of the biblical text. We also gained more information in new archaeological discoveries of ancient civilizations, including thousands of tablets from Mesopotamia giving us a great deal of information about ancient Mesopotamian and Babylonian religion.
We learned that Babylonian religion was an astral religion, closely related to Canaanite practices, although more focused on the sun, moon, and stars and their motion than on the immediate cycles of nature as it was in Canaan. The Babylonians worshipped as gods the manifestations of celestial bodies. It is from Babylon that we get the signs of the Zodiac representing the constellations. We now know that the two terms used in the Hebrew text of Isaiah, Helel, morning star, and Shahar, dawn, were Babylonian astral deities (which is reflected in most modern translations).
Now, if we look at the text of Isaiah 14 in context, and without the assumptions we brought to it from the New Testament, the meaning of the passage becomes more obvious and goes a radically different direction. The book of Isaiah has spent the first chapters denouncing the sins of Israel and its failure to be God’s people. There have also been expectations that God will work in new ways in the life of the nation to help them recover their mission as God’s people. One of those ways would be through a new king to replace the corrupt Ahaz. Because of his pro-Assyrian policies, the nation was teetering upon the brink of catastrophe as Assyria expanded to the West (see Assyrian Dominance).
Isaiah 13 begins a long section of the book known as "Oracles Against Foreign Nations." This is a standardized format in the prophets for universalizing responsibility to God. Not only Israel, but all nations, were accountable to God and would fall under the same judgment Israel would. As is typical in other prophetic books (Amos, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) not all of these oracles come from the same time period as Isaiah of Jerusalem, but they do follow a similar pattern and serve the same function in the book.
Isaiah 13 is part of the oracle directed against Babylon, probably from a time after the Exile. In very flowery, poetic, and highly figurative language, Babylon is denounced for her arrogance and lack of concern for other nations as she built her empire. It is interesting that in 13:10, specific mention is made of the failure of the Babylonian gods (constellations, sun, moon) to help them when God calls then to accountability.
Chapter 14 then begins with the promise of Israel’s return from Babylonian exile, a theme that dominates the middle section of Isaiah (40-55). Part of that return would involve the downfall of the tyrant king of Babylon (v. 4; probably Nebuchadrezzer; for the same language used of a later Babylonian ruler, Belshazzar, see Dan 5:20). In that context, verses 12-21 are a poetic picture of that downfall. Helel, morning star, and Shahar, dawn, then, are references to the Babylonian gods who could not save the king, and are themselves to be cast down. In fact, there is probably a reference here to the habit of ancient Near Eastern kings proclaiming themselves incarnations of the gods; with the fall of the kings, the gods also fell, often physically as the images that represented them were pulled down and destroyed (recall the symbolism of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad).
So, the Isaiah passage does not connect, either historically or theologically, with the New Testament passages about the devil or the satan. By listening to the Old Testament passage on its own terms within its own context, we discover that Lucifer is not an Old Testament name for the devil or the satan. The passage in Isaiah 14:12-17 is directed at the downfall of the arrogant Babylonian rulers who took Israel into exile. By beginning with the New Testament, by making assumptions not supported by a closer examination of Scripture itself, and by using external theological categories as a lens through which to read Scripture, we may end up badly misreading Isaiah."
In 2 Corinthians 11:14, Paul writes about false apostles:
And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
And in Luke 10:18-19, at the return of the 70 as they comment on their success, Jesus says:
And he said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you."
So, without ever stopping to examine either of those passages to see what was being said in them, and what was meant by the references, we could conclude that the devil/the satan is somehow associated with light and the sky.
If we then add the passage from Revelation 12 about the devil/satan/red dragon/serpent the symbols begin to run together, again before we have done any real study on any of these passages separately to see what each of them is saying. In Revelation 12 the red dragon with seven heads appears in the sky, and his tail sweeps down a third of the stars to earth, and is then later cast down to the earth along with his angels. Of course, at this point, a great many assumptions are introduced into the reading even of the Revelation passage, even though this is obviously extremely figurative language; we just assume what it means.
By adding these three passages together without regard to context, and read them as if they were all speaking in the same way about the same thing to make the same point, we can conclude that we have here a jigsaw picture of a long ago historical event described in great detail (but of course we have to put the pieces together from various bits scattered through literature written 800 years apart!).
Then, if we take that assumption about the meaning of all these texts, and the assumption that adding texts together is the way to understand them (a drastic perversion of the "Scripture interprets Scripture" principle!), and bring that back to the Isaiah text, then it is very easy to reach the conclusion that Isaiah is also describing the same event. There are similar metaphors of light, stars, conflict, and being cast down. Earlier translations (KJV) mistakenly took the Hebrew term sheol in verse 15 as "hell" (in Hebrew it is simply the place where the dead go, a metaphor for death, specifically burial; see Sheol, Hell, and the Dead), which is another piece of the puzzle. So of course, since there is no mention of the "devil" or the "satan" in Isaiah, "Lucifer" must be the name Isaiah uses for him! So, Isaiah is talking about the devil being cast out of heaven!
This is the position that prevailed throughout much of the history of the church until the time of the Reformation and the Enlightenment, when we began asking more direct questions of the biblical text. We also gained more information in new archaeological discoveries of ancient civilizations, including thousands of tablets from Mesopotamia giving us a great deal of information about ancient Mesopotamian and Babylonian religion.
We learned that Babylonian religion was an astral religion, closely related to Canaanite practices, although more focused on the sun, moon, and stars and their motion than on the immediate cycles of nature as it was in Canaan. The Babylonians worshipped as gods the manifestations of celestial bodies. It is from Babylon that we get the signs of the Zodiac representing the constellations. We now know that the two terms used in the Hebrew text of Isaiah, Helel, morning star, and Shahar, dawn, were Babylonian astral deities (which is reflected in most modern translations).
Now, if we look at the text of Isaiah 14 in context, and without the assumptions we brought to it from the New Testament, the meaning of the passage becomes more obvious and goes a radically different direction. The book of Isaiah has spent the first chapters denouncing the sins of Israel and its failure to be God’s people. There have also been expectations that God will work in new ways in the life of the nation to help them recover their mission as God’s people. One of those ways would be through a new king to replace the corrupt Ahaz. Because of his pro-Assyrian policies, the nation was teetering upon the brink of catastrophe as Assyria expanded to the West (see Assyrian Dominance).
Isaiah 13 begins a long section of the book known as "Oracles Against Foreign Nations." This is a standardized format in the prophets for universalizing responsibility to God. Not only Israel, but all nations, were accountable to God and would fall under the same judgment Israel would. As is typical in other prophetic books (Amos, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) not all of these oracles come from the same time period as Isaiah of Jerusalem, but they do follow a similar pattern and serve the same function in the book.
Isaiah 13 is part of the oracle directed against Babylon, probably from a time after the Exile. In very flowery, poetic, and highly figurative language, Babylon is denounced for her arrogance and lack of concern for other nations as she built her empire. It is interesting that in 13:10, specific mention is made of the failure of the Babylonian gods (constellations, sun, moon) to help them when God calls then to accountability.
Chapter 14 then begins with the promise of Israel’s return from Babylonian exile, a theme that dominates the middle section of Isaiah (40-55). Part of that return would involve the downfall of the tyrant king of Babylon (v. 4; probably Nebuchadrezzer; for the same language used of a later Babylonian ruler, Belshazzar, see Dan 5:20). In that context, verses 12-21 are a poetic picture of that downfall. Helel, morning star, and Shahar, dawn, then, are references to the Babylonian gods who could not save the king, and are themselves to be cast down. In fact, there is probably a reference here to the habit of ancient Near Eastern kings proclaiming themselves incarnations of the gods; with the fall of the kings, the gods also fell, often physically as the images that represented them were pulled down and destroyed (recall the symbolism of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad).
So, the Isaiah passage does not connect, either historically or theologically, with the New Testament passages about the devil or the satan. By listening to the Old Testament passage on its own terms within its own context, we discover that Lucifer is not an Old Testament name for the devil or the satan. The passage in Isaiah 14:12-17 is directed at the downfall of the arrogant Babylonian rulers who took Israel into exile. By beginning with the New Testament, by making assumptions not supported by a closer examination of Scripture itself, and by using external theological categories as a lens through which to read Scripture, we may end up badly misreading Isaiah."
Bubba,
Was it you who told me not to rely on my own understanding? Yet...you rely on the words of another to be fully accurate when it comes to what is clearly written in God's word? What makes this man more credible than what scripture clearly states? Not to mention both testaments DO in fact link and coincide with one another in terms of message. There are various parts of scripture that share the same message.
With the way you talk, if one is to believe the word of one book....one needs to be careful of the next within the Bible. Please forgive me if I sound condesending that is not my intention. I just do not understand how you can say that or even agree or quote another's words that seem to state that one cannot believe in both testaments of God's word.
After all Jesus' own birth was foretold in the Old Testament...or was there another son of God born within a manger to a virgin and one to whom kings bowed before?
For to me, that is like saying the book of Genesis is true so that means that the book of Matthew cannot be so.
Certainly there is much in Scripture that we must just give over to God and not rely on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5)and simply except, but this article is stating we must in the case of the O.T. writer Isaiah, use inductive reasoning to find out the context of whom constitutes this “ Day starâ€. Which comes by knowing the history and people at the time and most importantly, what the surrounding Scriptures speak to? Once the Reformation hit the Church, many such as John Calvin also came to the same conclusion on Isaiah 14, with better manuscripts that (non-Latin bias) had better translated particular words and the advent of easier availability of historic books due to the printing press? I think if you go back over the article you will see that the he is telling us to read these N.T. passages that seem similar in context to Isaiah 14 in a systematic overview of all of Scripture.
In short, this is what I believe to be true:
I believe that God is sovereign and that all things are in His control, even that which is evil. I believe the “Fall†was predetermined, in that God knew Adam and Eve would fail (the Supralapsarian position) and that the second Adam, Jesus was the “Lamb slain before the foundation of the earth†(Eph.1:4-5, Rev. 17:8) and this was the plan before the ages. I believe there is a good possibility that Satan is not an angel, but a creature created evil from the very beginning (John 8:44, 1John 3:8; Isa. 14 and Ezek. 28 are about the Kings of Babylon and Tyre). I believe that God causes us to believe in Him and in every age there are those who are elect. At the final age of man, all creation will eventually be reconciled through Jesus, Whatever the place of the unbeliever is after this life; it is not an eternal place of torment but a remedial period of correction. Man must struggle with evil, especially their own, the need of a Savior comes by this hopeless struggle of the flesh (Gal. 3:23-25, Eph. 2:1-10). It is through this process that God first brings us to Himself through Jesus in justification and later maturation through sanctification which is all a work of the efficacious Spirit (Eph. 2:10, Phil. 2:13). After one does come to know Jesus in this life; he or she will continue to struggle with the flesh until the death of these physical bodies (Romans 7:15- Romans 8:1). Though I believe God uses evil more often through second causes (man’s evil deeds), He nonetheless uses evil in the form of a first cause as He chooses, though He is not evil and does not sin. Man is always responsible for his sin, even if God uses man’s sin for His own higher purposes.
Bubba
Tina
Member
.
Thanks for your personal opinion, but if satan was an evil creature (singular), where is he hiding right now, who has seen him, touched him, heard him ?
Didn't he pull down along with him a third of angels from heaven to rebel with him ?
Revelations 12:3-9
And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days. And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Revelations 9:1
Then the fifth angel sounded: And I saw a star fallen from heaven to the earth. To him was given the key to the bottomless pit.
Thanks for your personal opinion, but if satan was an evil creature (singular), where is he hiding right now, who has seen him, touched him, heard him ?
Didn't he pull down along with him a third of angels from heaven to rebel with him ?
Revelations 12:3-9
And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days. And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Revelations 9:1
Then the fifth angel sounded: And I saw a star fallen from heaven to the earth. To him was given the key to the bottomless pit.
Tina,
I am a partial preterist leaning towards full preterism, I see pretty much all of the Revelation being fulfilled by 70AD. Thus when John writes:
“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John...Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.
Revelation 1:1, 3 ESV “
When Jesus died on the cross and rose again, He defeated Satan and his demons, but the work of the cross also includes the resurrection of the dead (those who have died prior to the cross) and judgment upon the “the great whore†(which is adulterous Israel; Rev. 17-18) who greatly persecuted the Church until the Romans came and destroyed the great city and it’s religious system. This is Christ coming in judgment, and the short time for Satan was from the cross to 70 AD. Much more could be said and many books are out that that gives a partial/full preterist interpretation of the Revelation (Gary Demar, Hank Hanegraaff and etc.).
In respect to Revelation 9:1, is it accurate to say that this person is Satan? Especially if Satan (Apollyon) and his minions (locusts) are already in this pit and are govern by God on the extent of their persecution and destruction?
From the beginning Satan has in my opinion been nothing but a tool of God throughout history, as Martin Luther said, the “Devil is God’s devilâ€.
Bubba
smaller
Member
Bubba, you are SPOT ON in this matter.
Satan was A PERFECT DEVIL from the beginning. A perfect DEVIL is a DEVIL in any sense of views.
There is not ONE SCRIPTURE that presents SATAN as ever being HOLY.
No, not one.
Yet 'believers' by the SCORE believe that was the case. And I may say they are blinded in this matter by the 'god of this world' who is CLAIMING to have once BEEN HOLY even when that presentation DOES NOT EXIST.
enjoy!
smaller