Demons

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your reply.

I'm experiencing somewhat of a non-standard day, with various interruptions to normal service! I will reply to you tomorrow, therefore.
(That will give me a little more thinking time, too )

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your reply.

I'm experiencing somewhat of a non-standard day, with various interruptions to normal service! I will reply to you tomorrow, therefore.
(That will give me a little more thinking time, too )

It's all good.

Take your time ... that's what I did!

I'm glad the conversation is still alive.

[Charisma]

Hi Rick,

Before your post (p24) gets any further back, I would like to comment on the discussion about God relationship with evil.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Strong's puts many complexions on 'evil':

07451 ra` {rah}
from 07489; TWOT - 2191a, 2191c
AV - evil 442, wickedness 59, wicked 25, mischief 21, hurt 20, bad 13, trouble 10, sore 9, affliction 6, ill 5, adversity 4, favoured 3, harm 3, naught 3, noisome 2, grievous 2, sad 2, misc 34; 663 adj

1) bad, evil
1a) bad, disagreeable, malignant
1b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
1c) evil, displeasing
1d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
1e) bad (of value)
1f) worse than, worst (comparison)
1g) sad, unhappy
1h) evil (hurtful)
1i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
1j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
1j1) in general, of persons, of thoughts
1j2) deeds, actions
n m
2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
2a) evil, distress, adversity
2b) evil, injury, wrong
2c) evil (ethical)
n f
3) evil, misery, distress, injury
3a) evil, misery, distress
3b) evil, injury, wrong
3c) evil (ethical)


The word for 'know' (yada) carries a note of intimacy as well as having other implications. I came across this page and think it's helpful:
http://yadadrop.com/about/what-does-yada-mean

When was God's first encounter with 'evil'? Might it have been when His chief cherubim rebelled?

What about having to make the decision to slay the Lamb, before the foundation of the world? That was not a great moment for the Godhead, according to human interpretation, but, for God, might it not have been the very hour of triumph in which He proved Himself righteous?

Really what I'm asking, is: is there a conflict for God (with which God cannot cope) in being exposed to 'evil'? Indeed, of having become intimately acquainted with it in battle, while at no time condoning, entertaining or approving it, but rather resisting it?

Hebrews 12:3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. 4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. 5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: 6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

Hebrews 7:26 For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Genesis 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art] thou?
Can we in even begin to comprehend the grief God experienced when He lost His son, Adam, to the serpent's interference on earth?

Or, when He was unwilling to tolerate any more wickedness on earth, saying:
Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created ... '


I have the feeling we (humans) tend to assume that the amount of pain described in the verses above, either taints God, or is at variance with His being only good, only Light, only Love, only Truth - to name a few of His uncreated qualities - while I would say that unless God can experience those responses as part of His full and perfect character, we cannot be like Him.

The creations that we are, are also capable of the aforesaid responses because we were made in His image.

That we are born into the knowledge of good and evil only serves to corrupt the aforesaid responses, so that we cannot experience them as God, who does so whilst remaining just as holy, just as harmless, just as undefiled, and just as separate from sin and sinners as ever He was.

[heb13-13]

Hi Rick,

Before your post (p24) gets any further back, I would like to comment on the discussion about God relationship with evil.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Strong's puts many complexions on 'evil':

07451 ra` {rah}
from 07489; TWOT - 2191a, 2191c
AV - evil 442, wickedness 59, wicked 25, mischief 21, hurt 20, bad 13, trouble 10, sore 9, affliction 6, ill 5, adversity 4, favoured 3, harm 3, naught 3, noisome 2, grievous 2, sad 2, misc 34; 663 adj

1) bad, evil
1a) bad, disagreeable, malignant
1b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
1c) evil, displeasing
1d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
1e) bad (of value)
1f) worse than, worst (comparison)
1g) sad, unhappy
1h) evil (hurtful)
1i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
1j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
1j1) in general, of persons, of thoughts
1j2) deeds, actions
n m
2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
2a) evil, distress, adversity
2b) evil, injury, wrong
2c) evil (ethical)
n f
3) evil, misery, distress, injury
3a) evil, misery, distress
3b) evil, injury, wrong
3c) evil (ethical)


The word for 'know' (yada) carries a note of intimacy as well as having other implications. I came across this page and think it's helpful:
http://yadadrop.com/about/what-does-yada-mean

When was God's first encounter with 'evil'? Might it have been when His chief cherubim rebelled?

What about having to make the decision to slay the Lamb, before the foundation of the world? That was not a great moment for the Godhead, according to human interpretation, but, for God, might it not have been the very hour of triumph in which He proved Himself righteous?

Really what I'm asking, is: is there a conflict for God (with which God cannot cope) in being exposed to 'evil'? Indeed, of having become intimately acquainted with it in battle, while at no time condoning, entertaining or approving it, but rather resisting it?

Hebrews 12:3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. 4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. 5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: 6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

Hebrews 7:26 For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Genesis 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art] thou?
Can we in even begin to comprehend the grief God experienced when He lost His son, Adam, to the serpent's interference on earth?

Or, when He was unwilling to tolerate any more wickedness on earth, saying:
Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created ... '


I have the feeling we (humans) tend to assume that the amount of pain described in the verses above, either taints God, or is at variance with His being only good, only Light, only Love, only Truth - to name a few of His uncreated qualities - while I would say that unless God can experience those responses as part of His full and perfect character, we cannot be like Him.

The creations that we are, are also capable of the aforesaid responses because we were made in His image.

That we are born into the knowledge of good and evil only serves to corrupt the aforesaid responses, so that we cannot experience them as God, who does so whilst remaining just as holy, just as harmless, just as undefiled, and just as separate from sin and sinners as ever He was.

Hi Charisma,

God knows evil not be experiencing is own act of volitionally rebelling and thus tasting evil else He would cease to be God. He would in essence rebel against Himself. A crazy person would be the God of the Universe then.

God knows evil by the very fact that it is contrary to His nature. Satan's lie to Adam was correct that Adam would be like Him knowing good and evil but the lie was 1) Adam would be like God in complete essence and with absolute freewill and 2) Adam would know good and evil like God knows it.

Adam came to know good and evil two ways. 1) Adam found out what was contrary to God's nature and 2) Adam experienced evil as part of his being. He now became a slave to evil, to sin...to Satan.

"God knows good and evil not by relating such to some objective standard of goodness outside of Himself, but by recognizing that goodness is that which corresponds with His own absolute character of good. Evil is that which is not consistent with who He is, and is not the expression of His character. Because God is absolute goodness, and He is independent, autonomous and self-generating in the expression of that goodness, He can "know good and evil" in reference to Himself. Man, being contingent and derivative, cannot be "like God knowing good and evil" by defining such in terms of his own inherent character and self-activation of such. So what the serpent suggested to the original man and woman was a lie. It was a half-truth, which is always a lie. The half-truth was that man could be deceived into thinking that he could be "like God" by determining "good and evil" in reference to his own opinions, preferences, likes and dislikes, etc. Setting himself up as his own standard and center of reference, man could determine that what he found to be right, correct, pleasurable and permissable would be called "good," and what he considered to be wrong, incorrect, unpleasant and impermissable would be called "evil." Thus began all humanly determined standards of morality and ethics, as well as the belief-systems of orthodoxy and unorthodoxy. Religion has been playing this "good and evil" game of self-determined standards of "dos" and "don'ts" ever since. It is all part of the humanistic premise that posits man as his own center of reference, whereby all revolves around his individual or collective determinations. The "father of lies" foisted upon man the lie of independency and autonomy, and persuaded man to align with him in his self-orientation and selfishness (cf. Ezek; Zech)? It was the short-circuiting of God's intent to express His character of love for others through man." Jim Fowler, The Fall of Man, http://www.christinyou.net/pages/fallman.html

Blessings to all,
Rick

[kathryn]

Hi Rick and Kathryn,



Hi Kathryn,

Which verses do you have in mind, which conflict with Rick's point that Satan had acquired 'all the kingdoms of the world' through Adam's carelessness with God's commands in the garden of Eden?Hi Charisma...I wasn't referring specifically to Rick's point about satan acquiring the kingdoms of the world. (see below)

Rick quoted Luke 4. Here is Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

(Same deal as in Genesis 14:21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. {persons: Heb. souls} )


The only person on earth in Jesus' time, who was not a child of disobedience spiritually, was Jesus.
Historically, since Adam, this order had pertained unbroken in all mankind.


It is accepted that Satan is 'the prince of the power of the air' , as Paul calls him in Ephesians 2:the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath

Why do you mention 'not as a King/man'? (Again, it's not disputed Satan is a spirit; it's clear from Ephesians 2, that he had every person on earth in his control.)Rick was using verses that speak of an Adam type, as "king" and "man" (King of Babylon and King of Tyre), an attributing them to satan.


Three witnesses?

[heb13-13]

Somebody help me out, I need an Interpreter.

Rick

[kathryn]

Hi Kathryn,

Ok, let's stick with scriptures first and then we can get to typology regarding your doctrine.

What scriptures would I have to deny?

Rick

Hi Rick.....You've already had to deny several emphatic, self explanatory scriptures to fit your doctrine, such as "as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ (2nd Adam) shall all live". The "as in Adam ALL, qualifies the ALL who live in Christ. "If I be lifted up, I will DRAG ALL men to myself". (I emphasize the "drag" because the majority of the church is superimposing their concept of "free will" on the whole process of redemption, without taking into consideration the fact that mankind was IMPUTED with Adam's sin against their will...subjected to vanity(depravity and corruption) against their will...in the HOPE that all will be set free . God's "hope" is not a vain Hope....and His Law reveals how the salvation of ALL mankind takes place, as does temple/tabernacle typology.)

My focus and passion, whether it is right or wrong or important to you, is to demonstrate how the Good News is built into the foundation of the Law of Moses and the typology of the Bible and is non-biased and self-confirming throughout scripture. While everyone might not agree that it is non-biased and self confirming...hopefully one day we can get into this study in more detail.

We began this with Adam and Eve in the garden and I attempted to introduce some simple definitions in temple/tabernacle typology to demonstrate satan's position and role in the process of the redemption of mankind...and which you discounted without giving any foundational understanding of your own. To go into any more detail, beyond this point, would be futile (for me anyway) until we can establish some common ground .

You've now gone on to equate satan with "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14 and Eze. 28....which does not fit with any foundation in typology . You are confusing an Adam type (the King of Babylon and the King of Tyre), which is referring to a man (Adam)...with a spirit/satan. (and no where is satan ever a "King"). I mention it only because it came up in an earlier part of the conversation and it's a doctrine that many are still laboring under and need to have a deeper look at how they arrived at this conclusion.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Rick.....You've already had to deny several emphatic, self explanatory scriptures to fit your doctrine, such as "as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ (2nd Adam) shall all live". The "as in Adam ALL, qualifies the ALL who live in Christ. "If I be lifted up, I will DRAG ALL men to myself". (I emphasize the "drag" because the majority of the church is superimposing their concept of "free will" on the whole process of redemption, without taking into consideration the fact that mankind was IMPUTED with Adam's sin against their will...subjected to vanity(depravity and corruption) against their will...in the HOPE that all will be set free . God's "hope" is not a vain Hope....and His Law reveals how the salvation of ALL mankind takes place, as does temple/tabernacle typology.)

Hey there folks,

I think it is important to understand that there are very few Scriptures that can be said to be "emphatic" and "self-explanatory." This is because they are written in words, and words are quite malleable and can be easily contorted (even unintentionally) to fit pretty much any preconceived conception. Case in point:

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

There are two possible meanings of this verse because the word "all" is ambiguous:

All in Adam refers to all who were in Adam. We know this refers to all humanity because everyone was literally "born of Adam."
All in Christ refers to all who are in Christ. We do not know if this refers to all humanity, because the Bible does not say that everyone will be "born of Christ." Maybe yes, maybe no. There's no way to tell from this verse.

How then can that verse be used as a "proof text" for anything? It doesn't say that "all will be in Christ" but rather "all who are in Christ will be made alive." It doesn't tell us who will be in Christ. Or maybe it does (if you want it to, I guess).

My focus and passion, whether it is right or wrong or important to you, is to demonstrate how the Good News is built into the foundation of the Law of Moses and the typology of the Bible and is non-biased and self-confirming throughout scripture. While everyone might not agree that it is non-biased and self confirming...hopefully one day we can get into this study in more detail.

We began this with Adam and Eve in the garden and I attempted to introduce some simple definitions in temple/tabernacle typology to demonstrate satan's position and role in the process of the redemption of mankind...and which you discounted without giving any foundational understanding of your own. To go into any more detail, beyond this point, would be futile (for me anyway) until we can establish some common ground .

The words highlighted red express what must be accomplished for any progress to be made between people with differing points of view. It appears to be a most difficult thing to do.

You've now gone on to equate satan with "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14 and Eze. 28....which does not fit with any foundation in typology . You are confusing an Adam type (the King of Babylon and the King of Tyre), which is referring to a man (Adam)...with a spirit/satan. (and no where is satan ever a "King"). I mention it only because it came up in an earlier part of the conversation and it's a doctrine that many are still laboring under and need to have a deeper look at how they arrived at this conclusion.

I don't understand how you could say it "does not fit any foundation in typology." It fits perfectly! Of course, the mere fact that something can be made to "fit" does not prove it is true! And I don't think the satanic interpretations of Isa 14 and Ezek 28 are true, but they certainly do "fit" very well with typology.

Great chatting,

Richard

[heb13-13]

Hi Rick.....You've already had to deny several emphatic, self explanatory scriptures to fit your doctrine, such as "as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ (2nd Adam) shall all live".

Hi Kathryn,

This is where you stumble. Just as Adam (a "choosing" creature) acted upon a promise and exercised his faith and free choice, he then chose to identify with Satan. Likewise all men must choose to identify with Jesus, exercising their faith and acting upon God's promises in Jesus.

It was not automatic (and against Adam's will) for Adam to fall. A choice was made. It is not automatic and against our will that we choose Christ, for many men choose NOT Christ. Adam chose sin and received death. We can choose Christ and receive Life.

You undoubtedly have a different view of how man partakes of the Life of Christ, but it won't stand up just like your ALL inclusiveness bypasses the will of man and therefore his ability to make a choice for himself in whom he will serve.

You ignore that a choice was made in the garden so that you can ignore that a choice has to made concerning Christ.

So, I am not denying any "emphatic" scriptures.

To believe is more than mental assent. To believe is to receive.


John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

And we know that all men do not receive Jesus Christ. Many reject Him.

Example:

John 1:11
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Do you see the implication of not believing (receiving) in John 5:24? You eisegetical gymnastics twist the Words of the Bible and the thoughts conveyed by the Holy Spirit.

If is definitely a choice that man makes to be united with Christ in the likeness of His death (Romans 6:3). God does foist or force this upon anyone. It means death and many think this is foolishness and reject the notion of it, thereby rejecting Christ.

The operation of God to raise someone up from the dead and make us alive together with Him (Jesus) is all done by faith (Col 2:12-13) and God ceases being God if He forces a man to exercise His free choice and faith in Him. That is neither free choice or faith.

Just as Adam and Eve were given a promise and exercised their free choice and faith, all men, any man, must act upon the promises of God in Jesus Christ.

There is nothing obtuse about the scriptures or the receptive nature that man has and exercises by an act of his will.

Best to you,
Rick

[kathryn]

Hi Richard....I hear what you're saying about "emphatic"....but I've yet to see any biblical proof in the foundation of scripture, that doesn't agree , confirm and enlarge on the full redemption of all mankind. That doesn't mean it's right of course and does nothing to prove the verses , but it is my focus and I've never had to struggle to fit any biblical concept into the foundation as it has dove-tailed nicely all by itself. If that's an interesting concept to some...great. If it isn't...I don't know where to go from there. It makes no sense to me to study any other way. Does it make sense to you that anyone can come to a belief about satan and the redemption of mankind, without examining some basic definitions about our triune nature and how it applies to the garden/Adam/Eve and typology? It seems to me that we just end up talking at each other, rather than trying to come to some common ground. It's not that I'm giving up or not interested in pursuing the conversation.

I realize I must come across as dogmatic in this... but it's because I have seen the non-biased nature of typology confirm itself and harmonize over and over throughout scripture...so "changing my mind" is going to take an equally confirming study of the same foundation to help me to see otherwise. I'm just being truthful here...and hopefully you can see it has nothing to do with stubbornness or close-mindedness or an unwillingness to converse.


I'm not sure what you mean by the verses in Isaiah and Eze. fitting the type. The type of what? Rick's doctrine? Please 'splain.