PDA

View Full Version : What made Satan sin?



matthew94
Aug 26th 2008, 05:50 PM
The traditional view of Satan says that he was a good angel gone bad. But I've never heard a good answer to the question 'what provoked him to go bad?'

When we sin, there are 3 provoking factors
1) The fallen nature (sinful nature)
2) The fallen world (peer pressure)
3) The tempter (satan and/or demons)

When Eve sinned, there was only 1 provoking factor
1) She had no fallen nature
2) There was no fallen world
3) There was a tempter (the serpent, satan)

So I can understand our sin easily. And I can grasp Eve's sin (Though it is more difficult). But I have a lot of trouble understanding Satan's sin (given the traditional view of Satan). The traditional view says that Satan sinned WITHOUT ANY of the 3 normal provoking factors
1) He had no fallen nature (he was created good)
2) There was no fallen world (yet)
3) There was no tempter (yet)

Why would an angel, living in the presence of God, rebel without being provoked from within or without? The lackluster answers I've heard in response to this question have caused me to speculate about a non-traditional view of Satan. But I'm all ears if someone has a good answer to this conundrum from the traditional view perspective :)

Thanks much,
matthew

keck553
Aug 26th 2008, 05:56 PM
Is it possible the answer is so simple it baffles us?

Pride.

matthew94
Aug 26th 2008, 06:01 PM
Is it possible the answer is so simple it baffles us?

Pride.

My question is, where did his pride come from? :)

The most common answers I've gotten over the years are 'pride' and 'free-will.' But I don't think either answer answers the question. They just re-state the problem.

When I have pride it comes from my fallen nature, or from worldly influence, or from a tempter. Satan had no source for his pride that I'm aware of.

VerticalReality
Aug 26th 2008, 06:03 PM
Is it possible the answer is so simple it baffles us?

Pride.

Right, but pride is the sin. What led to the pride?

For us when we are prideful it is because we are led to that sin by things such as unholy thoughts and the like. What about Satan? How did he get to such a point without any of the factors that we have?

This is a good question, matthew94. I anticipate the opinions given.

Emanate
Aug 26th 2008, 06:13 PM
Right, but pride is the sin. What led to the pride?

For us when we are prideful it is because we are led to that sin by things such as unholy thoughts and the like. What about Satan? How did he get to such a point without any of the factors that we have?

This is a good question, matthew94. I anticipate the opinions given.


My view on Scripture is that HaSatan is a messenger of God, with a different purpose, albeit not a pleasant purpose.

matthew94
Aug 26th 2008, 06:15 PM
My view on Scripture is that HaSatan is a messenger of God, with a different purpose, albeit not a pleasant purpose.

So your view is that Satan isn't a good angel gone bad, but a being specifically designed by God with a purpose that isn't pleasant? Am I understanding you correctly (just to be clear)?

Such a theory would, of course, resolve my question. It would also raise some others :)

keck553
Aug 26th 2008, 06:17 PM
You're right. It could be one of those 'mysteries' we can't answer. Maybe when we're risen with God in His domain, we will understand it. I mean the angels are not made in the 'image of God' as we are, so I think that would include attributes such as attitudes, self awareness, etc. It could be totally outside of our experience.

It's like wondering why God created the universe, presumably after the fall. What exactly is our purpose anyway, I mean as a summation of alpha-omega?

There are hints in the Bible, like when God glorifies Himself by taking the least, most stiffnecked and intolerable people like the Hebrews and lifting them up above all nations (like Egypt). So we humans are made a little lower than angels, so are the redeemed in Christ another example of God's glory?

Then there is the blood. God says the wages of sin is death, but God can't die for us in Heaven to fix it the way He did, and besides, angels are eternal. So how does God 'die' to redeem us and put satan under His foot? Through the seed of Eve. Strange by my understanding.

I totally don't understand God's economy, but here we are, a part of it, redeeemed and separated from satan's grasp by the God's own Right Hand, Jesus.

Emanate
Aug 26th 2008, 06:17 PM
So your view is that Satan isn't a good angel gone bad, but a being specifically designed by God with a purpose that isn't pleasant? Am I understanding you correctly (just to be clear)?

Such a theory would, of course, resolve my question. It would also raise some others :)


That is it in a nutshell.

Bryan43
Aug 26th 2008, 06:18 PM
Pride. what does pride say? I can be my own God. I can rule my own life. God does not have my best interest at heart. Only I can know what is good for me. God is holding back on me and not giving me everything I deserve.

Pride caused satan to fall. because he was the greatest of ALL gods created beings. Instead of praising God for it. he wanted more. he wanted control of his own life. thus he chose to rebel against God , and take life into his own hands.

Eve's sin was not eating the fruit. it was her pride. Satan said God did not really care for her. he was keeping something from her. Thus Eve too did not trust Goid. but took things into her own hands.

all sin comes from pride. When we sin, we say we do not trust God. but we will take things in our own hands. god is holding back on me. I know what is better for me. who is God to say what is good and what is bad.

Remember. God's thou shalt nots are not because he wants to order us around and tell us what to do.

It is for our own protection. All sin is harmfull. God wants what is good for us. and he does not want us to hurt ourselves.

Joe King
Aug 26th 2008, 06:20 PM
Pride. Which is why we all sin.

HisLeast
Aug 26th 2008, 06:21 PM
Definitely a confusing matter. If there is no force in opposition to God (futile as that would be), where did the demons (ie. "Legion") come form that were cast out? If it weren't for Legion naming himself, one might think "demon possessed" was a synonym for "completely given over to sin". So it seems to me there are clear cases of the supernatural working in seeming opposition to God. On the flip side, I think Satan is given way too much cosmic-voodoo-power by modern Christians. I have great difficulty reconciling what we're taught about Satan with what you see in the Old Testament (Satan and God having a near casual conversation about Job).

I don't know. And after much study I'm as ignorant (if not more so) than when I started.

matthew94
Aug 26th 2008, 06:23 PM
That is it in a nutshell.

Thanks. I'm considering a similar view (though that may be another thread)

As for this thread, I'm still eager to here fuller answers to the question than 'free-will' and/or 'pride' (not that I don't appreciate those responses, but I don't feel they really answer the question).

Thanks all,
matthew

Jerome1
Aug 26th 2008, 07:14 PM
I heard somewhere before that when God was showing the angels his plan for humankind, Satan rebelled and told God, "I will not serve."

I think it is from church tradition, i'm sure it can't be difficult to find on the internet.

Cynthia
Aug 26th 2008, 07:14 PM
I was always under the impression that Angels had free will and could be sinful. Satan didn't fall alone. It's just that Angels can't be forgiven because they already know God and therefore can't have "faith". They know God in all his glory.

keck553
Aug 26th 2008, 07:17 PM
Do you think the angels fell with satan or do you think satan tempted them, a sort of 'leader of the pack?' The bible shows no redemption at all for fallen angels.

matthew94
Aug 26th 2008, 07:24 PM
Just to clarify, I am not denying, in my question, that angelic being had/have free will. In fact, I am assuming as much. The issue is not whether free will was present, but whether free will can produce sin without being provoked by 1) a fallen nature, 2) a fallen world and 3) a fallen angel or angels.

Personally (and in light, once again, of responses from the traditional camp that I find satisfactory), I am very open to a non-traditional understanding of the origin of Satan. As Emanate earlier shared, this conundrum is solved by the theory that God created various angelic beings with various roles and that one such being was 'Satan' and his role was to be a tester all along. In other words, Satan wasn't a good angel gone bad, but an angel performing an unpleasant role.

While this theory answers my question, it creates some more. Did this 'testing angel' get corrupted along the way or is he still performing his role as given? If he did get corrupted, did he, then, tempt some of the other angels to rebel with him? Many other questions would follow. Is it possible that the proneness of humanity to fail God-given tests resulted in pride forming within this testing-angel, leading to His rebellion from God? If such is true, humanity is, in a large sense, responsible for Satan. But this is all theoretical.

grptinHisHand
Aug 26th 2008, 07:26 PM
Some have disagreed with me about this Scripture being about Satan, as it says "Lucifer". But I see them as the same. I see these verses as the answer to your question. Isaiah 14:12-15 NKJV



The Fall of Lucifer
12 "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!
13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&translation=nkjvp&x=7&y=10#) 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;
14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&translation=nkjvp&x=7&y=10#) I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.'
15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&translation=nkjvp&x=7&y=10#) Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.
IMHO
g

Emanate
Aug 26th 2008, 07:26 PM
Just to clarify, I am not denying, in my question, that angelic being had/have free will. In fact, I am assuming as much. The issue is not whether free will was present, but whether free will can produce sin without being provoked by 1) a fallen nature, 2) a fallen world and 3) a fallen angel or angels.


I would say that Adam and Eve are saying yes.

matthew94
Aug 26th 2008, 07:36 PM
I would say that Adam and Eve are saying yes.

Good catch. I should have worded that post differently. (Although it would be Eve's 'yes' moreso than Adam, as he may have had so called peer pressure or worldly influence).

So, to re-phrase that post. Can free-will produce sin w/o 1) a fallen nature 2) a fallen world 3) a tempter?

Emanate...would you call the satan a tester or a tempter or both?

matthew94
Aug 26th 2008, 07:41 PM
Some have disagreed with me about this Scripture being about Satan, as it says "Lucifer". But I see them as the same. I see these verses as the answer to your question. Isaiah 14:12-15 NKJV


IMHO
g

I disagree on 2 counts

1. The passage says who it's about. It's a judgment on the king of babylon (14:4). 'Lucifer' seems to just be a term for an exalted position 'o morning star'. We have no real biblical grounds for associating lucifer with satan. The context speaks of human actions. What's more, the passage itself says it is talking about a man (14:16-17). Could it have a 2nd meaning, having to do with Satan? It could? But that's pure speculation.

2. Even if the passage IS about Satan, it doesn't really answer my question in a satisfactory way, in my opinion. What would have PROVOKED Satan to say such prideful things? His sin nature? He didn't have one. Worldly pressure? There wasn't any. Temptation? There was no one to tempt him. The answer to the question 'What caused Satan to become prideful?' cannot be 'his pride.' At least as far as I'm concerned.

legoman
Aug 26th 2008, 07:43 PM
So your view is that Satan isn't a good angel gone bad, but a being specifically designed by God with a purpose that isn't pleasant? Am I understanding you correctly (just to be clear)?

Such a theory would, of course, resolve my question. It would also raise some others :)


That is it in a nutshell.

Hi Matthew,

I also believe Satan was specifically designed by God to be the antagonist in God's plan, or do "God's dirty work" if you will.

Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.

Satan is the waster. His purpose is to destroy. God created him.

I don't think Satan somehow rebelled against God, forcing God to come up with a plan to deal with him. If you believe that, you also must believe God is not all-knowing and all-powerful.

It was all God's plan from the beginning.

Cheers,
Legoman

HisLeast
Aug 26th 2008, 07:45 PM
I don't think Satan somehow rebelled against God, forcing God to come up with a plan to deal with him. If you believe that, you also must believe God is not all-knowing and all-powerful.

Not necessarily. One could also believe that Satan rebelled in futility. God may have known how and when it would happen.

Personally, I have no opinion at all.

matthew94
Aug 26th 2008, 07:54 PM
Not necessarily. One could also believe that Satan rebelled in futility. God may have known how and when it would happen.

Personally, I have no opinion at all.

Yeah, I agree with HisLeast that a rebellion of a testing-agent doesn't take away from God's all-powerful & all-knowing status to any degree (any more than man's rebellion would).

So, in theory, if I were to take this non-traditional view of satan. I would still be undecided as to whether this testing-angel is still playing his God-given role or if he became corrupted somewhere along the way (previously existing to test people, but subsequently wanting them to fail).

Emanate
Aug 26th 2008, 07:56 PM
Good catch. I should have worded that post differently. (Although it would be Eve's 'yes' moreso than Adam, as he may have had so called peer pressure or worldly influence).

So, to re-phrase that post. Can free-will produce sin w/o 1) a fallen nature 2) a fallen world 3) a tempter?

Emanate...would you call the satan a tester or a tempter or both?


I would say a temptation is a test.

matthew94
Aug 26th 2008, 08:06 PM
I would say a temptation is a test.

Thanks.

I would agree.

How would you respond to one who would, inevitably, bring up James 1:13 that God doesn't test anyone. Is it appropriate to respond "Well, it's not Him tempting, it's His agent."

keck553
Aug 26th 2008, 08:11 PM
I disagree on 2 counts

1. The passage says who it's about. It's a judgment on the king of babylon (14:4). 'Lucifer' seems to just be a term for an exalted position 'o morning star'. We have no real biblical grounds for associating lucifer with satan. The context speaks of human actions. What's more, the passage itself says it is talking about a man (14:16-17). Could it have a 2nd meaning, having to do with Satan? It could? But that's pure speculation.

.

Excellant post!

legoman
Aug 26th 2008, 08:12 PM
Yeah, I agree with HisLeast that a rebellion of a testing-agent doesn't take away from God's all-powerful & all-knowing status to any degree (any more than man's rebellion would).

So, in theory, if I were to take this non-traditional view of satan. I would still be undecided as to whether this testing-angel is still playing his God-given role or if he became corrupted somewhere along the way (previously existing to test people, but subsequently wanting them to fail).

Sorry I should have been clearer - I am coming from the point of view that there can be no free will if God has complete foreknowledge. If Satan rebelled, but God hadn't planned for him to rebel, does this not contradict God's foreknowledge? Likewise if God knew Satan would rebel, because he planned it, Satan really didn't have free will.

Here are some more verses to ponder.

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made" (Genesis 3:1)

Note it says the serpent (satan) was MADE by God.

"He that commits sin is of the Devil for the Devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the Devil" (I John 3:8).

This seems to say the Devil sinned from the beginning. This would fit with the Isaiah 54:16 that says God created the waster to destroy. We also know God creates evil - obviously Satan is evil, therefore God created Satan.

Anway to answer your question: YES Satan is still performing his God-given role.

keck553
Aug 26th 2008, 08:15 PM
Thanks.

I would agree.

How would you respond to one who would, inevitably, bring up James 1:13 that God doesn't test anyone. Is it appropriate to respond "Well, it's not Him tempting, it's His agent."

That's not a good translation:

Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.

Tested and tempted are two different things. Scripture says God tested Abraham for example.

Gen 22:1 Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."

legoman
Aug 26th 2008, 08:16 PM
I disagree on 2 counts

1. The passage says who it's about. It's a judgment on the king of babylon (14:4). 'Lucifer' seems to just be a term for an exalted position 'o morning star'. We have no real biblical grounds for associating lucifer with satan. The context speaks of human actions. What's more, the passage itself says it is talking about a man (14:16-17). Could it have a 2nd meaning, having to do with Satan? It could? But that's pure speculation.

2. Even if the passage IS about Satan, it doesn't really answer my question in a satisfactory way, in my opinion. What would have PROVOKED Satan to say such prideful things? His sin nature? He didn't have one. Worldly pressure? There wasn't any. Temptation? There was no one to tempt him. The answer to the question 'What caused Satan to become prideful?' cannot be 'his pride.' At least as far as I'm concerned.


Excellant post!

Yep, I'm in agreement that Lucifer may not refer to Satan. If you look at other translations (other than KJV), you will see Lucifer is not even in the text. It appears it may be a victim of bad translation.

It also seems to me the verse is talking about the King of Babylon (from verse 14:4).

matthew94
Aug 26th 2008, 08:17 PM
Sorry I should have been clearer - I am coming from the point of view that there can be no free will if God has complete foreknowledge

Well that's a point of view I disagree with, but I'd rather not go that route in this thread, if you please :)


If Satan rebelled, but God hadn't planned for him to rebel, does this not contradict God's foreknowledge? Likewise if God knew Satan would rebel, because he planned it, Satan really didn't have free will.

In regards to the first statement, I, by no means, think that God (in this scenario) would have been surprised by satan's rebellion. He would have certainly foreknown it. So we agree on the first sentence.

In regards to the second statement, I, once again, will simply note my total disagreement with your position that knowing the future dictates the future (eliminating free will).

Thanks for the Scriptures you provided, especially the Isaiah passage which I hadn't thought of yet in this discussion.

In Christ,
matthew

ilovemetal
Aug 26th 2008, 08:19 PM
this is an interesting thread and relates to one i posted a while back, did God make evil?

i'll put it this way: if the angels didn't sin at first, there would be no one to tempt them into having pride, as pride is a sin. so the though 'maybe i could be better than God' couldn't of come up. so then, as it is, sin had to be created, or as has been said, the angel satan created to test. but even then, he had to have the first temptation of pride, from somewhere?

maybe. i don't know. these seem to be one of those never get the answer types. so yeah, that's what i got. it is curious though....

Emanate
Aug 26th 2008, 08:21 PM
Thanks.

I would agree.

How would you respond to one who would, inevitably, bring up James 1:13 that God doesn't test anyone. Is it appropriate to respond "Well, it's not Him tempting, it's His agent."


That would be a fair response. Satan was created for a purpose and I believe it has a free reign (to an extent) to operate.

John146
Aug 26th 2008, 08:24 PM
I disagree on 2 counts

1. The passage says who it's about. It's a judgment on the king of babylon (14:4). 'Lucifer' seems to just be a term for an exalted position 'o morning star'. We have no real biblical grounds for associating lucifer with satan. The context speaks of human actions. What's more, the passage itself says it is talking about a man (14:16-17). Could it have a 2nd meaning, having to do with Satan? It could? But that's pure speculation.It says that Lucifer fell from heaven. Therefore, it's not referring to a man. You know as well as I do that scripture is often symbolic. Especially a book like Isaiah. Isaiah 11 calls Jesus a rod and a Branch. If Jesus can be called a rod and a branch why can't Satan be called a man, right? Satan appears as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14) and the name Lucifer means "Light-bearer".


2. Even if the passage IS about Satan, it doesn't really answer my question in a satisfactory way, in my opinion. What would have PROVOKED Satan to say such prideful things? His sin nature? He didn't have one. Worldly pressure? There wasn't any. Temptation? There was no one to tempt him. The answer to the question 'What caused Satan to become prideful?' cannot be 'his pride.' At least as far as I'm concerned.Why not? You said earlier that you believe he had free will. Why can't one with free will choose to become prideful or choose to believe he could be like God?

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

What caused him to sin was that he knew he was very powerful. And it went to his head. He became prideful and started thinking that he could become the equal of or even greater than God. The thought, foolish as it was, that he could be just like God, was something that appealed to him and he convinced himself that he could attain that status.

John146
Aug 26th 2008, 08:27 PM
Yep, I'm in agreement that Lucifer may not refer to Satan. If you look at other translations (other than KJV), you will see Lucifer is not even in the text. It appears it may be a victim of bad translation.

It also seems to me the verse is talking about the King of Babylon (from verse 14:4).How did the king of Babylon fall from heaven?

John146
Aug 26th 2008, 08:29 PM
Yeah, I agree with HisLeast that a rebellion of a testing-agent doesn't take away from God's all-powerful & all-knowing status to any degree (any more than man's rebellion would).

So, in theory, if I were to take this non-traditional view of satan. I would still be undecided as to whether this testing-angel is still playing his God-given role or if he became corrupted somewhere along the way (previously existing to test people, but subsequently wanting them to fail).If Satan is only doing what God created him to do then why will he be cast into the lake of fire where he will be tormented?

matthew94
Aug 26th 2008, 08:30 PM
That's not a good translation:

Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.

Tested and tempted are two different things. Scripture says God tested Abraham for example.

Gen 22:1 Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."


I think you are incorrect (though I used to hold to the same distinction b/w tempting and testing). The translators sometimes translate it differently (tempt when satan is doing it, but test when God is doing it), but it's usually the same exact hebrew or greek word. This realization has played a big role in my openness to a non-traditional view of satan.

In fact, the very example you mentioned proves this point. You mention God TESTING Abraham. Hebrews mentions this:


11:17By faith (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4102&version=nas) Abraham (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=11&version=nas), when he was tested (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3985&version=nas), offered (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4374&version=nas) up Isaac (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2464&version=nas), and he who had received (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=324&version=nas) the promises (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1860&version=nas) was offering (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4374&version=nas) up his only (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3439&version=nas) begotten (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3439&version=nas) son;Compare that to James


1:13Let no (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3367&version=nas) one (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3367&version=nas) say (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3004&version=nas) when he is tempted (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3985&version=nas), "I am being tempted (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3985&version=nas) by God (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2316&version=nas) "; for God (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2316&version=nas) cannot (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=551&version=nas) be tempted (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=551&version=nas) by evil (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2556&version=nas), and He Himself (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=846&version=nas) does not tempt (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3985&version=nas) anyone (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3762&version=nas).

Q: What is the greek behind Hebrew's 'tested'?
A: peirazo

Q: What is the greek behind James 'tempted'?
A: peirazo

Same word. Translators decided to translate it differently based on the source. Peirazo is translated as tempt (and similar) about 17 times. But it is translated as test (and similar) an equal number of times!

matthew94
Aug 26th 2008, 08:45 PM
It says that Lucifer fell from heaven. Therefore, it's not referring to a man.

Hey John! Thanks for participating in this discussion.

Your 1st statement seems at odds with the rest of your post. If you agree that Isaiah is symbolic (as described below), then why couldn't a man be seen as falling from heaven? :) What's more, we have numerous examples of men/cities being said to have fallen from heaven (Obadiah 1:4, Matthew 11:23). I'd add another thought: How did Babylon (the subject of Isaiah 14) originate? By attempting to reach the heavens (Genesis 11:4). To me, the symbolism fits the king of Babylon perfectly. So why speculate that it's got satan in mind? Even if satan is a secondary meaning, he's definitely not the primary meaning.


You know as well as I do that scripture is often symbolic. Especially a book like Isaiah. Isaiah 11 calls Jesus a rod and a Branch. If Jesus can be called a rod and a branch why can't Satan be called a man, right?

I'm not denying that he could be described as a man. I'm just saying that's not the best interpretation of this passage. The passage is clearly, primarily, talking about the King of Babylon. It's not enough to say it's symbolic, we have to make a case for why the symbol is of satan.


Satan appears as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14) and the name Lucifer means "Light-bearer"

That's a fair enough point, but not enough to establish that Isaiah 14:12 is talking about Satan by any means.


Why not? You said earlier that you believe he had free will. Why can't one with free will choose to become prideful or choose to believe he could be like God?

One with free will can choose to become prideful. But such a transition is always provoked (in our experience) by either a fallen nature, a fallen world, or a tempter. You haven't answered WHY a being would choose pride minus these elements. In other words, you, like many others, have answered the question 'why did he become prideful' with the answer 'because he became prideful.' How did it 'go to his head' minus those factors? How did he act so foolishly? What made it 'appeal to him?'


If Satan is only doing what God created him to do then why will he be cast into the lake of fire where he will be tormented?

That's a good question, and one that I've already thought of (but I'm glad to have you bring it up here too, since it's a legitimate quandry). There are two very solid answers to the question that both make sense to me.

1) He'll be thrown into the lake b/c his role will be over. The passage is communicating to us the temporal nature of the testers role

2) He'll be thrown into the lake b/c he became corrupted along the way, after being created as a testing-agent. Perhaps the number of humans who failed his tests provoked pride in him to start a heavenly rebellion.

Thanks for the thoughts!
Matthew

matthew94
Aug 26th 2008, 08:48 PM
I have a small group meeting tonight. I'll check this thread again around midnight I'd assume. Thanks for all who have participated so far :)

legoman
Aug 26th 2008, 08:50 PM
How did the king of Babylon fall from heaven?

The King of Babylon elevated himself to heaven in his own mind. So he figuratively fell from heaven.

Here is the verse from the Concordant Literal Old Testament:

"How you have fallen from the heavens! Howl, son of the dawn! You are hacked down to the earth, defeater of all nations."

Lucifer is translated as Howl in this version? Seems strange doesn't it. But if you look at other verses in the King James version, you will see the same original hebrew word "eill" is translated as howl everywhere else, except in this one case it was translated as the proper name Lucifer. Seems like a fishy translation to me.

keck553
Aug 26th 2008, 09:01 PM
Now you're gonna make me dig into my Septuagint (which I don't have here). I'm not an expert on Greek, but In Hebrew the word means to prove, or to test.

I've not seen it in Hebrew allude to tempt (at least how I view tempt).

Unless my migrane meds are completely confusing me....I'll get back if you think that point is relavent.

John146
Aug 26th 2008, 09:05 PM
Hey John! Thanks for participating in this discussion.

Your 1st statement seems at odds with the rest of your post. If you agree that Isaiah is symbolic (as described below), then why couldn't a man be seen as falling from heaven? :) I never claimed that this is not a matter of interpretation, right? My point was to show the possibilities and that we shouldn't be dogmatic about it referring to a literal man. Or that Lucifer literally fell from heaven. :)


What's more, we have numerous examples of men/cities being said to have fallen from heaven (Obadiah 1:4, Matthew 11:23). I'd add another thought: How did Babylon (the subject of Isaiah 14) originate? By attempting to reach the heavens (Genesis 11:4). To me, the symbolism fits the king of Babylon perfectly. So why speculate that it's got satan in mind? Even if satan is a secondary meaning, he's definitely not the primary meaning.Where is your evidence that a king of Babylon named Lucifer ever existed?


I'm not denying that he could be described as a man. I'm just saying that's not the best interpretation of this passage. The passage is clearly, primarily, talking about the King of Babylon. It's not enough to say it's symbolic, we have to make a case for why the symbol is of satan.Of course, from my perspective, you need to make the case that a man named Lucifer was ever the king of Babylon.


That's a fair enough point, but not enough to establish that Isaiah 14:12 is talking about Satan by any means.I didn't intend to imply that I had proven anything. I was just giving my interpretation and trying to show that there are other valid possibilities than the one you currently hold to.


One with free will can choose to become prideful. But such a transition is always provoked (in our experience) by either a fallen nature, a fallen world, or a tempter.That is true of humans, yes. But Satan is an angel and therefore, I'm not sure it's valid to think of him the same way as we think of human beings.


You haven't answered WHY a being would choose pride minus these elements. Yes, I did. Because he was not a robot and had free will, he was able to think. At one point I believe he thought to himself something like this: "You know, I am quite powerful. I'm pretty amazing, actually. Why can't I be just like God? Afterall, I'm perfect and utterly incredible. Why not?"


In other words, you, like many others, have answered the question 'why did he become prideful' with the answer 'because he became prideful.' How did it 'go to his head' minus those factors? How did he act so foolishly? What made it 'appeal to him?' See above.


That's a good question, and one that I've already thought of (but I'm glad to have you bring it up here too, since it's a legitimate quandry). There are two very solid answers to the question that both make sense to me.

1) He'll be thrown into the lake b/c his role will be over. The passage is communicating to us the temporal nature of the testers roleThis is not at all a satisfactory answer because he will suffer and be tormented there. Why would he be tormented for merely doing what he was created to do?


2) He'll be thrown into the lake b/c he became corrupted along the way, after being created as a testing-agent. Perhaps the number of humans who failed his tests provoked pride in him to start a heavenly rebellion.You are saying that the failure of humans could provoke pride in him but not his own free will? I don't really follow that logic.

This is a more valid option than your other one, though, because it at least gives a reason for him to be cast into the lake of fire, where he "shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Rev 20:10)


Thanks for the thoughts!
MatthewYou are welcome. I always enjoy discussing scripture with you because you are always very respectful towards others even when you disagree.

Eric

VerticalReality
Aug 27th 2008, 02:56 AM
It says that Lucifer fell from heaven. Therefore, it's not referring to a man. You know as well as I do that scripture is often symbolic. Especially a book like Isaiah. Isaiah 11 calls Jesus a rod and a Branch. If Jesus can be called a rod and a branch why can't Satan be called a man, right?

Just wanted to throw in here that there are other Scriptures where angelic beings are referred to as a man . . .

Here is a depiction of Gabriel in Daniel . . .



Daniel 9:20-21
Now while I was speaking, praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God, yes, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, reached me about the time of the evening offering.

Diolectic
Aug 27th 2008, 03:37 AM
The traditional view of Satan says that he was a good angel gone bad. But I've never heard a good answer to the question 'what provoked him to go bad?'
Eze 28:15 You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, till iniquity was found in you.
:17a Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty

IOW, pride. However, were did the pride come from if he was perfect in his ways from the day that he were created?
From his free willed mind.


When we sin, there are 3 provoking factors
1) The fallen nature (sinful nature)
2) The fallen world (peer pressure)
3) The tempter (Satan and/or demons)
#1) is questionable, it would be more because they do not love Christ.
#3) is more of the flesh



When Eve sinned, there was only 1 provoking factor
1) She had no fallen nature
2) There was no fallen world
3) There was a tempter (the serpent, Satan)
We have no fallen nature, but we have the weak flesh to compel us to sin, with which we can not please God.
God did not make imperfect humans with a sin nature, He made them with free will to choose either way.
The cause of Adams fall is the flesh:
1John 2:16 For all that is in the world,
1: the lust of the flesh
2: the lust of the eyes
3: the pride of life,
is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was
1: good for food,
and that it was
2: pleasant to the eyes.
and a tree to be
3: desired to make one wise
she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.


So I can understand our sin easily. And I can grasp Eve's sin (Though it is more difficult). But I have a lot of trouble understanding Satan's sin (given the traditional view of Satan). The traditional view says that Satan sinned WITHOUT ANY of the 3 normal provoking factors
1) He had no fallen nature (he was created good)
2) There was no fallen world (yet)
3) There was no tempter (yet)

Why would an angel, living in the presence of God, rebel without being provoked from within or without?
Satan/Lucifer had a free will as we do.
He was created good as all mankind are.
He had temptations as we do.
Being the top angle Eze 28:14
He saw to clime higher than he was, Isaiah 14:14 - the pride of life,

He saw himself to be beautiful; Eze 28:17 - the lust of the eyes

Lucifer doesn't have flesh as we do, so that wasn't a factor.

student of the Lamb
Aug 27th 2008, 03:49 AM
What I was taught is that Satan, then known as Lucifer, was so prideful as to think that he could do a better job of ruling God's kingdom that he rebelled. One third of all the angels sided with him and they were thrown out of God's kingdom. However, as proven in the book of Job, Satan still has access to God's kingdom.

matthew94
Aug 27th 2008, 04:43 AM
I never claimed that this is not a matter of interpretation, right? My point was to show the possibilities and that we shouldn't be dogmatic about it referring to a literal man. Or that Lucifer literally fell from heaven. :)

I'd phrase it just a little differently. We should be dogmatic that it's about a literal man (for the passage tells us that it's about the King of Babylon). But we should not be dogmatic that it's ONLY about him. It could have a secondary meaning about Satan


Where is your evidence that a king of Babylon named Lucifer ever existed?...Of course, from my perspective, you need to make the case that a man named Lucifer was ever the king of Babylon.

I would not expect to find history confirming a king with the name Lucifer. I think the word is simply a description. It just means 'o shining one'. it's just talking about the previously exalted status of Babylon's king.


I didn't intend to imply that I had proven anything. I was just giving my interpretation and trying to show that there are other valid possibilities than the one you currently hold to.

Oh, I didn't intend to speak as if I wasn't aware of the other interpretation. I assume it is the majority interpretation. I was speaking about my interpretation in a bolder manner specifically b/c it is the minority view in the contemporary church.


That is true of humans, yes. But Satan is an angel and therefore, I'm not sure it's valid to think of him the same way as we think of human beings.

Yes, I did. Because he was not a robot and had free will, he was able to think. At one point I believe he thought to himself something like this: "You know, I am quite powerful. I'm pretty amazing, actually. Why can't I be just like God? Afterall, I'm perfect and utterly incredible. Why not?"

I respect your position that free will minus any fallen or tempting influence can produce sin, and I suppose that is the best argument the traditional view can make on this point. I just, personally, find it unsatisfactory.


This is not at all a satisfactory answer because he will suffer and be tormented there. Why would he be tormented for merely doing what he was created to do?

Granted, if the torment and duration of torment is meant to be taken literally (which is, of course, questionable considering the book that info is found in). But this is a point against the view I am considering. I will have to think about it more.


You are saying that the failure of humans could provoke pride in him but not his own free will? I don't really follow that logic.... This is a more valid option than your other one, though, because it at least gives a reason for him to be cast into the lake of fire, where he "shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Rev 20:10)

I think it is logical. In my opening post I said sin is provoked by either 1) fallen nature 2) fallen world or 3) satan/demons. In my way of thinking. Free will cannot produce sin minus one of those 3 elements. Satan could not have gone from a good angel to a bad angel b/c none of those 3 elements was present. But, if he were created as a tester of humanity, and found that many humans were failing the tests. He might develop pride in his abilities b/c now he is experiencing element #1 and receiving approval from element #2. Previously he was in a situation with none of the 3 key factors, but after Eden, you can make a case that 2 of the factors were present to him.


You are welcome. I always enjoy discussing scripture with you because you are always very respectful towards others even when you disagree.

Eric

Likewise. My pleasure as usual.

In Christ,
matthew

matthew94
Aug 27th 2008, 04:48 AM
Eze 28:15You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, till iniquity was found in you.
:17a Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty

IOW, pride. However, were did the pride come from if he was perfect in his ways from the day that he were created?
From his free willed mind.


#1) is questionable, it would be more because they do not love Christ.
#3) is more of the flesh



We have no fallen nature, but we have the weak flesh to compel us to sin, with which we can not please God.
God did not make imperfect humans with a sin nature, He made them with free will to choose either way.
The cause of Adams fall is the flesh:
1John 2:16For all that is in the world,
1:the lust of the flesh
2:the lust of the eyes
3:the pride of life,
is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Gen 3:6And when the woman saw that the tree was
1: good for food,
and that it was
2:pleasant to the eyes.
and a tree to be
3:desired to make one wise
she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.


Satan/Lucifer had a free will as we do.
He was created good as all mankind are.
He had temptations as we do.
Being the top angle Eze 28:14
He saw to clime higher than he was, Isaiah 14:14 - the pride of life,

He saw himself to be beautiful; Eze 28:17 - the lust of the eyes

Lucifer doesn't have flesh as we do, so that wasn't a factor.

This is probably one of the better overall arguments I've seen for the traditional view of Satan. Basically, you are expanding upon Eric's statement that free will alone can produce sin. I still find this very questionable, but I do appreciate your input here.

I do, of course, reject your interpretation of Ezekiel 28 on the same grounds by which I rejected the usage of Isaiah 14. It's not that I am closed minded about the possibility that such passages may have a secondary meaning applying to Satan's fall. It's that I think we should err on the side of caution before admitting it as evidence. These 2 certainly shouldn't be the basis for the entire doctrine, but I find they are the 2 key references.

Thanks again,
matthew

legoman
Aug 27th 2008, 11:47 AM
Ezekiel 28 is talking about the King of Tyre. By the end of that passage in verse 19, we see that the King of Tyre has come to a horrible end (because he died like everyone else does). Its not talking about Satan as Satan has not come to a horrible end (yet).

divaD
Aug 27th 2008, 04:40 PM
Ezekiel 28 is talking about the King of Tyre. By the end of that passage in verse 19, we see that the King of Tyre has come to a horrible end (because he died like everyone else does). Its not talking about Satan as Satan has not come to a horrible end (yet).



If you believe this is solely in reference to a human earthly king, then how do you explain verses 13 and 14?


Ezekiel 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.
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.


The only human man and woman that God created was Adam and Eve. Ez 28 is clearly not describing either of these. All others that God created would then be angels, etc. And this would include satan. Verse 14 clearly tells us that God Himself created the one in question here. Verse 14 tells us that this one was an annointed cherub. That sure sounds like the desription of a spirit being, and not that of a man. Then you have to consider that this one in question was in Eden, the garden of God. The only 2 humans that the Bible records as to being in Eden, the garden of God, were Adam and Eve.

matthew94
Aug 27th 2008, 05:54 PM
If you believe this is solely in reference to a human earthly king, then how do you explain verses 13 and 14?

Thanks for your reply. Your belief that Ezekiel 28 is referring to Satan can be summarized into the following points from verses 13-14.


1. The being in question was specially created by God
2. The being in question was an annointed cherub
3. The being in question was in Eden

Therefore: The being in question was Satan

*** Let me know if this is not a good summary of your post

1. In response to your point #1, I'd simply insist that we see how Ezekiel uses the word 'create' throughout his book. In 21:19 the word is used when God commands Ezekiel to 'make' a signpost. This certainly does not refer to the original creation week. In 21:30 Ezekiel prophecies that the Ammonites will be judged in the place in which they were 'created'. In other words, Ezekiel uses the words for the creation of the Ammonite people in history, not during the creation week. 23:47 uses the secondary meaning of the Hebrew term (to dispatch, cut down) which obviously wasn't the intended meaning in 28. And the final 2 usages are here in Ezekiel 28 itself. So, in summary, in his 5 uses of the Hebrew term, 3 are outside of Ezekiel 28 and none of the three refer to the original creation. In fact, 1 of the 3 fits very well with the usage in 28 in that it describes the creation of a secular government. Thus, an appeal to the word 'create' for the traditional view of Satan is debatable.

2. In response to your point #2, I'd grant that this is the strongest point of your argument, but I'd state that it's hardly an open and shut case. Since we all agree that there are symbolic and metaphorical features in the passage, why couldn't Ezekiel simply be saying that the King of Tyre was a guardian for his people? Why can't Ezekiel simply be saying that he was like their guardian angel? He was powerful and exalted. We use this kind of language (comparing people to angels) all the time in life, whether romantically or thankfully. In light of the clear indication that the subject is the literal ruler of Tyre (28:1, 2, etc), I don't see this is enough evidence.

3. In response to your point #3, I'd insist that the meaning is not that the being in question was literally in Eden! The meaning is that the ruler of Tyre had attained to great status. His kingdom was like paradise. To prove this, I'd send you to Ezekiel 31:9 (just a few chapters later). In 31, Ezekiel compares Egypt's wealth to that of Assyria and the Cedars of Lebanon. It describes how awesome those Cedars were. 31:8 says the Cedars of Lebanon out-rivaled even the cedars in the garden of God! And then in 31:9 it makes uses the imagery of Eden, once again, as a comparison for the riches of Assyria & Egypt. Seeing this, why couldn't Ezekiel be doing the same thing in 28? Why can't the reference to Eden simply be referring to the great status the ruler of Tyre had attained to?

In other words, I think that when we take a careful look at your 3 reasons for interpreting the passage has having Satan in mind, they fall short. They are, at the very least, put into question. And then when we consider this in light of the crystal clear statements that the passage is about the ruler of tyre, we are left wondering why we'd force satan into the text.

The passage declares its own intentions
1. It says that it's directed at the 'ruler of Tyre' (28:2a)
2. It says the ruler had pride b/c of his position on the seas, which fits with ancient Tyre (28:3b)
3. It says, specifically, that the ruler is not a god, but a MAN (28:2c)
4. It says that the ruler of Tyre is not wiser than Daniel (28:3-4)
5. It says that the ruler of Tyre is great at trading (28:5)
6. It says foreign nations will fight against him (28:6-8)
7. It says, once again, that the ruler is merely a man (28:9)
8. It says that the ruler of Tyre will be killed by men (28:10)
9. It says, once again, that it's about the King of Tyre (28:11-12)
10. It says, as we would expect, that he was adorned with jewelry (28:13)
11. It says that the ruler of Tyre was a guardian cherub, which makes good sense as a metaphor for a king (28:14)
12. It says the reason for his pride was widespread trade (28:15-18a)
13. It says the King of Tyre was reduced to ashes (28:18b)
14. It says he will come to a horrible end and be no more (28:19)

Thus, while your 3 points in favor of interpreting Satan into the text (Despite his never being mentioned!) are understandable from my point of view, my 14 points in favor of the straight-forward reading of the text don't seem to fit Satan very well at all (save 3 possible exceptions). So if we have 14 points in favor of interpreting the passage in a straight-forward manner, and 3 points possibly opening the door to a non-straight forward interpretation, why would we choose the latter, especially considering the passage tells us who it's about?

legoman
Aug 27th 2008, 06:20 PM
Nice detailed reply Matthew.

<quote>
1. The being in question was specially created by God
2. The being in question was an annointed cherub
3. The being in question was in Eden
</quote>

I would add the following on point #2: This may be another case of a translation problem changing the meaning. Look at this version of Ezekiel 28:14 (Contemporary English Version):

(CEV) I appointed a winged creature to guard your home on my holy mountain, where you walked among gems that dazzled like fire.

vs King James Version:

(KJV) 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.

The King James makes it sound like King Tyre was an anointed cherub, while the CEV makes it sound like a cherub (winged creature) was appointed to guard Tyre.

Something definitely fishy with the translation here.

Regarding point #3, I believe it is just a metaphor saying the King Tyre was living the life of paradise (like the Garden of Eden).

Cheers,
Legoman

cwb
Aug 27th 2008, 06:57 PM
Just to clarify, I am not denying, in my question, that angelic being had/have free will. In fact, I am assuming as much. The issue is not whether free will was present, but whether free will can produce sin without being provoked by 1) a fallen nature, 2) a fallen world and 3) a fallen angel or angels.



Adam as well as Satan sinned without being provoked by 1) a fallen nature, 2) a fallen world or 3) a fallen angel or angels. I do believe free will can produce sin without being provoked.

jamesand57
Aug 27th 2008, 07:00 PM
Adam as well as Satan sinned without being provoked by 1) a fallen nature, 2) a fallen world or 3) a fallen angel or angels. I do believe free will can produce sin without being provoked.


With free will though comes the Choice between humility and Pride. I think when one closely looks at what little we know on Satan before the fall it comes down to he choose Pride over Humility.

divaD
Aug 27th 2008, 07:15 PM
Thanks for your reply. Your belief that Ezekiel 28 is referring to Satan can be summarized into the following points from verses 13-14.



*** Let me know if this is not a good summary of your post

1. In response to your point #1, I'd simply insist that we see how Ezekiel uses the word 'create' throughout his book. In 21:19 the word is used when God commands Ezekiel to 'make' a signpost. This certainly does not refer to the original creation week. In 21:30 Ezekiel prophecies that the Ammonites will be judged in the place in which they were 'created'. In other words, Ezekiel uses the words for the creation of the Ammonite people in history, not during the creation week. 23:47 uses the secondary meaning of the Hebrew term (to dispatch, cut down) which obviously wasn't the intended meaning in 28. And the final 2 usages are here in Ezekiel 28 itself. So, in summary, in his 5 uses of the Hebrew term, 3 are outside of Ezekiel 28 and none of the three refer to the original creation. In fact, 1 of the 3 fits very well with the usage in 28 in that it describes the creation of a secular government. Thus, an appeal to the word 'create' for the traditional view of Satan is debatable.

2. In response to your point #2, I'd grant that this is the strongest point of your argument, but I'd state that it's hardly an open and shut case. Since we all agree that there are symbolic and metaphorical features in the passage, why couldn't Ezekiel simply be saying that the King of Tyre was a guardian for his people? Why can't Ezekiel simply be saying that he was like their guardian angel? He was powerful and exalted. We use this kind of language (comparing people to angels) all the time in life, whether romantically or thankfully. In light of the clear indication that the subject is the literal ruler of Tyre (28:1, 2, etc), I don't see this is enough evidence.

3. In response to your point #3, I'd insist that the meaning is not that the being in question was literally in Eden! The meaning is that the ruler of Tyre had attained to great status. His kingdom was like paradise. To prove this, I'd send you to Ezekiel 31:9 (just a few chapters later). In 31, Ezekiel compares Egypt's wealth to that of Assyria and the Cedars of Lebanon. It describes how awesome those Cedars were. 31:8 says the Cedars of Lebanon out-rivaled even the cedars in the garden of God! And then in 31:9 it makes uses the imagery of Eden, once again, as a comparison for the riches of Assyria & Egypt. Seeing this, why couldn't Ezekiel be doing the same thing in 28? Why can't the reference to Eden simply be referring to the great status the ruler of Tyre had attained to?

In other words, I think that when we take a careful look at your 3 reasons for interpreting the passage has having Satan in mind, they fall short. They are, at the very least, put into question. And then when we consider this in light of the crystal clear statements that the passage is about the ruler of tyre, we are left wondering why we'd force satan into the text.

The passage declares its own intentions
1. It says that it's directed at the 'ruler of Tyre' (28:2a)
2. It says the ruler had pride b/c of his position on the seas, which fits with ancient Tyre (28:3b)
3. It says, specifically, that the ruler is not a god, but a MAN (28:2c)
4. It says that the ruler of Tyre is not wiser than Daniel (28:3-4)
5. It says that the ruler of Tyre is great at trading (28:5)
6. It says foreign nations will fight against him (28:6-8)
7. It says, once again, that the ruler is merely a man (28:9)
8. It says that the ruler of Tyre will be killed by men (28:10)
9. It says, once again, that it's about the King of Tyre (28:11-12)
10. It says, as we would expect, that he was adorned with jewelry (28:13)
11. It says that the ruler of Tyre was a guardian cherub, which makes good sense as a metaphor for a king (28:14)
12. It says the reason for his pride was widespread trade (28:15-18a)
13. It says the King of Tyre was reduced to ashes (28:18b)
14. It says he will come to a horrible end and be no more (28:19)

Thus, while your 3 points in favor of interpreting Satan into the text (Despite his never being mentioned!) are understandable from my point of view, my 14 points in favor of the straight-forward reading of the text don't seem to fit Satan very well at all (save 3 possible exceptions). So if we have 14 points in favor of interpreting the passage in a straight-forward manner, and 3 points possibly opening the door to a non-straight forward interpretation, why would we choose the latter, especially considering the passage tells us who it's about?



matthew94, you indeed make good points. As a matter of fact I'm aware of some of the points. Nonetheless I will need some time to consider what you wrote and compare to what is written. In the meantime I'll just keep it simple. Cherub, cherubim are used multiple times throughout Ezekiel. One can simply see how it's used throughout this book. From what I can deduce, it's always used in reference to something angelic, etc. So why would it's meaning change in ch 28? Also I have to wonder, if we can't find any more clues about satan's existence, except in Gen 3, because Revelation 12 gives us the link that the satan is the serpent, then whom are we battling with in the spirit world and why?

matthew94
Aug 27th 2008, 09:28 PM
Adam as well as Satan sinned without being provoked by 1) a fallen nature, 2) a fallen world or 3) a fallen angel or angels. I do believe free will can produce sin without being provoked.

Adam certainly did NOT sin minus #2. A fallen human (Eve) played the role of a fallen world and gave him the fruit. As for Satan, that's what this whole thread is about (Whether he could sin without any of the 3). So we're left with no conclusive proof that free will alone can produce sin.

matthew94
Aug 27th 2008, 09:34 PM
matthew94, you indeed make good points. As a matter of fact I'm aware of some of the points. Nonetheless I will need some time to consider what you wrote and compare to what is written. In the meantime I'll just keep it simple. Cherub, cherubim are used multiple times throughout Ezekiel. One can simply see how it's used throughout this book. From what I can deduce, it's always used in reference to something angelic, etc. So why would it's meaning change in ch 28? Also I have to wonder, if we can't find any more clues about satan's existence, except in Gen 3, because Revelation 12 gives us the link that the satan is the serpent, then whom are we battling with in the spirit world and why?

I agree that the cherubim reference is evidence on your side, especially as they are so common in Ezekiel.

As for your question, I think there are a lot of passages that talk about the Satan. We are not left with merely Genesis 3 and Revelation 12. My tentative position is not, at all, that Satan doesn't exist, but that he's just not exactly like the traditional view says he is. We can get plenty of information about Satan from 1 Chronicles 21:1, Job 1-2, Zechariah 3, Matthew 4, Mark 3, Luke 10, Acts 5, numerous references in Paul's letters, and Revelation 20. We aren't really short on passages to study about our enemy if we leave out Isaiah and Ezekiel. In fact, since the passages are, at best, questionable, we'd prolly be better to leave them out to avoid misinformation, since the passages mentioned above are clearly about Satan.

John146
Aug 27th 2008, 10:00 PM
Adam certainly did NOT sin minus #2. A fallen human (Eve) played the role of a fallen world and gave him the fruit. As for Satan, that's what this whole thread is about (Whether he could sin without any of the 3). So we're left with no conclusive proof that free will alone can produce sin.I knew you were going to say that. :D

I was going to tell him, but decided otherwise, that what he said was true unless Eve = a fallen world and I was also going to tell him that you would probably make the argument that Eve met the criteria for #2 and sure enough... :lol:

matthew94
Aug 27th 2008, 10:41 PM
Indeed, I'm a fairly predictable individual :)

I've very much enjoyed this discussion. I'm not as convinced of my current view as the thread my lead on. I find it better to argue hard for a position so the real counter-arguments will come out. I'm very open to any well reasoned argument on this subject.

divaD
Aug 27th 2008, 11:04 PM
We can get plenty of information about Satan from 1 Chronicles 21:1, Job 1-2, Zechariah 3, Matthew 4,
Mark 3, Luke 10, Acts 5, numerous references in Paul's letters, and Revelation 20.


Yes, i agree, these passages..are no doubt.. about satan. But the problem as I see it, none of them clearly speak to how satan came to this condition. And besides that, what I sort of felt like this thread was about...what caused a perfect being to sin in the first place, especially if at the time ALL beings that God created were perfect and sinless? Is this basically what we're discussing? If so, then this would be why Ez 28 might be beneficial to the discussion, providing Ez 28 is indeed speaking about satan somehow.

As far as ez 28, I can see where it makes since that this is in ref to an earthly king, simply by observing the context surrounding and leading up to this ch, but I can also see how it might apply to describing satan. This is one of these chs that could go either way, I haven't made up my mind yet. So I can't say that I'm right and that you're wrong, nor vice-versa.


Your honest opinion...if the serpent had not been in the garden, would man have ever partaken of the tree that the Lord God commanded them to not partake of? My honest opinion is this, I don't believe they would have.
I don't believe the devil physically forced the woman to partake of the tree, but I believe that he caused her to thru deceit, etc.

I can pretty much see how we got into our condition, but I suppose the question still is...how did satan get into his condition, if indeed the popular view about satan is correct?

RogerW
Aug 27th 2008, 11:08 PM
The traditional view of Satan says that he was a good angel gone bad. But I've never heard a good answer to the question 'what provoked him to go bad?'

When we sin, there are 3 provoking factors
1) The fallen nature (sinful nature)
2) The fallen world (peer pressure)
3) The tempter (satan and/or demons)

When Eve sinned, there was only 1 provoking factor
1) She had no fallen nature
2) There was no fallen world
3) There was a tempter (the serpent, satan)

So I can understand our sin easily. And I can grasp Eve's sin (Though it is more difficult). But I have a lot of trouble understanding Satan's sin (given the traditional view of Satan). The traditional view says that Satan sinned WITHOUT ANY of the 3 normal provoking factors
1) He had no fallen nature (he was created good)
2) There was no fallen world (yet)
3) There was no tempter (yet)

Why would an angel, living in the presence of God, rebel without being provoked from within or without? The lackluster answers I've heard in response to this question have caused me to speculate about a non-traditional view of Satan. But I'm all ears if someone has a good answer to this conundrum from the traditional view perspective :)

Thanks much,
matthew

Gasp! Could it be that God allows Satan, even created him, knowing he would be the tempter, who would bring the knowledge of both good and evil into the world, to (1) show His great love to those who would be saved (2) to show His glory. Everything God does is ultimately for His people's eternal good and for His glory.

Many Blessings,
RW

matthew94
Aug 28th 2008, 12:22 AM
Yes, i agree, these passages..are no doubt.. about satan. But the problem as I see it, none of them clearly speak to how satan came to this condition. And besides that, what I sort of felt like this thread was about...what caused a perfect being to sin in the first place, especially if at the time ALL beings that God created were perfect and sinless? Is this basically what we're discussing? If so, then this would be why Ez 28 might be beneficial to the discussion, providing Ez 28 is indeed speaking about satan somehow.

Hey, thanks for more feedback! This thread was, indeed, about whether the traditional view of Satan could suggest a GOOD theory as to WHY satan fell from being a good angel. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are often used to DESCRIBE his fall. But, in my mind, they don't EXPLAIN the fall.

And in light of the fact that those are the main 2 passages used to DESCRIBE his fall, and they probably aren't even about satan to begin with, we have reason to question whether the traditional view of satan (that he was a good angel that fell) is even accurate! In other words, b/c I was not convinced by any of the answers given, I'm giving more and more thought to a non-traditional view of the satan.


As far as ez 28, I can see where it makes since that this is in ref to an earthly king, simply by observing the context surrounding and leading up to this ch, but I can also see how it might apply to describing satan. This is one of these chs that could go either way, I haven't made up my mind yet. So I can't say that I'm right and that you're wrong, nor vice-versa.

I agree :) I think, though, that it is CERTAINLY about a mere man. What I am undecided about is if it has a SECONDARY meaning referring to satan.


Your honest opinion...if the serpent had not been in the garden, would man have ever partaken of the tree that the Lord God commanded them to not partake of? My honest opinion is this, I don't believe they would have. I don't believe the devil physically forced the woman to partake of the tree, but I believe that he caused her to thru deceit, etc.

I think that's a great question. And it fits perfectly with my thread. I'd say, though, that the tree itself was a test too. Perhaps, one day, there free will, mixed with the temptation of the tree, would have produced sin. But if it were not for the tree and the serpent, I think sin would have been impossible.


I can pretty much see how we got into our condition, but I suppose the question still is...how did satan get into his condition, if indeed the popular view about satan is correct?

I agree that the question still stands. So I am leaning toward a non-traditional view of satan.

matthew94
Aug 28th 2008, 12:24 AM
Gasp! Could it be that God allows Satan, even created him, knowing he would be the tempter, who would bring the knowledge of both good and evil into the world, to (1) show His great love to those who would be saved (2) to show His glory. Everything God does is ultimately for His people's eternal good and for His glory.

Many Blessings,
RW

I agree that this is a good possibility :) This thread was made to see if someone would convince me NOT to head that direction in my thinking.

legoman
Aug 28th 2008, 12:48 AM
I enjoyed your comment RogerW :)

I think there is a very important concept we have to keep in mind here (and this really applies for all debates in here). Always remember: ALL scripture is true, and scripture NEVER contradicts itself.

So, with respect to Matthew's question, we have some verses that clearly state God created Satan with the purpose of going out, destroying and sinning, AND Satan did this from the beginning. (Isaiah 54:16, 1 John 3:8, Genesis 3:1).

Then we have some other verses (Ezekiel 28, Isaiah 14) that appear to be plainly talking about a man, but could maybe be interpreted that Satan was a fallen angel, but the translations are a bit fishy, and its not completely clear.

Given that we know all scripture is true, why do we automatically discard the clearly stated verses and try to interpret meaning in the unclear verses? In fact we are not being honest if we just discard scripture because it doesn't fit with our preconceived ideas that are based on the traditions and teachings of men.

The bible clearly says God created Satan "the waster" to "waste". He sinned from the beginning, and that was his purpose.

Peace,
Legoman

RogerW
Aug 28th 2008, 02:37 AM
I enjoyed your comment RogerW :)

I think there is a very important concept we have to keep in mind here (and this really applies for all debates in here). Always remember: ALL scripture is true, and scripture NEVER contradicts itself.

So, with respect to Matthew's question, we have some verses that clearly state God created Satan with the purpose of going out, destroying and sinning, AND Satan did this from the beginning. (Isaiah 54:16, 1 John 3:8, Genesis 3:1).

Then we have some other verses (Ezekiel 28, Isaiah 14) that appear to be plainly talking about a man, but could maybe be interpreted that Satan was a fallen angel, but the translations are a bit fishy, and its not completely clear.

Greetings Legoman,

I totally agree. At best I think Eze 28 & Isa 14 may represent man after the fall, now under the power of Satan. Do these verses 13-15 represent man at creation? Perfect in every way until the tempter deceived him. Anointed cherub, not an angel, but symbolizing the glory of God's perfect creation.

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.

Here is the result of the fall, and mankind in bondage to sin and Satan.

Eze 28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
Eze 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
Eze 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
Eze 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

This passage from Isaiah, not representing Satan as a fallen angel, but a man, the king of Babylon, fallen under the power of Satan.

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

Many Blessings,
RW

crush
Aug 28th 2008, 09:24 AM
I'm pretty sure that Satan being cast out of heaven, and the "war in heaven" are future events, they haven't happened yet. The climactic event that triggers this is the "abomination of desolation", where Satan proclaims himself to be God in heaven, and is promptly cast down to earth.

For now he is the "anointed cherub that covereth" the mercy seat of Christ in heaven, pointing out the unworthiness of all who approach. His accusations now have been much weakened because we now have an intercessor in Christ who will stand in our place when we approach the mercy seat.

The clearest picture of these things happening is in Rev 12:9-11


Rev 12:9 and the great dragon was cast forth--the old serpent, who is called `Devil,' and `the Adversary,' who is leading astray the whole world--he was cast forth to the earth, and his messengers were cast forth with him.
Rev 12:10 And I heard a great voice saying in the heaven, `Now did come the salvation, and the power, and the reign, of our God, and the authority of His Christ, because cast down was the accuser of our brethren, who is accusing them before our God day and night;
Rev 12:11 and they did overcome him because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life--unto death;As you can see Satan IS in Heaven, accusing brethren "day and night" before God, so he is NOT cast out at this time. After he is cast down, "the war against the saints" immediately begins, where Satan "overcomes" them by slaughtering them, but actually he is "overcome" by them by this same act, much in the same way Satan "overcame" Christ at the cross LOL.

Dan 8 also puts the Fall of Satan and his angels at the time of the "abomination of desolation"


Dan 8:10 yea, it exerteth unto the host of the heavens, and causeth to fall to the earth of the host, and of the stars, and trampleth them down.
Dan 8:11 And unto the prince of the host it exerteth itself, and by it taken away hath been the continual sacrifice , and thrown down the base of his sanctuary.Anyway, I really don't see how anybody can think that Satan was cast out of heaven already, when we are told several times that he IS in heaven accusing us before God. There were angels that "left" heaven before, as we're told in Jude, but they're tucked safely away from us, in the Earth, in chains, awaiting their judgement, and Satan isn't among this group.

cwb
Aug 28th 2008, 07:00 PM
I agree that this is a good possibility :) This thread was made to see if someone would convince me NOT to head that direction in my thinking.

So you are saying Satan is not really bad but only doing what God would have him to do? I am probably wrong but it sounds like that is what you and Roger W are saying. The biggest problem I have with that theory is that scripture in Revelation says that Satan is going to be tormented in the lake of fire. So God is going to cast a being into the lake of fire for doing what God wanted him to do? I see far more problems with that theory than the traditional view - that yhe devil was a good angel who became bad on his own and not by God's prompting. Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could clarify it for me.

matthew94
Aug 28th 2008, 08:03 PM
So you are saying Satan is not really bad but only doing what God would have him to do? I am probably wrong but it sounds like that is what you and Roger W are saying.

That's not quite what I'm saying. My personal theory is that satan may have started out as a testing-angel (a negative role, but not a wicked being). But that, along the way, he became corrupted by his success, his following, and, eventually, the fact that he knew his time was running out.

But I also consider the view that he been faithful to his role as tempter the whole time to be defensible. I just don't happen to think it makes the most biblical sense.


The biggest problem I have with that theory is that scripture in Revelation says that Satan is going to be tormented in the lake of fire. So God is going to cast a being into the lake of fire for doing what God wanted him to do? I see far more problems with that theory than the traditional view - that yhe devil was a good angel who became bad on his own and not by God's prompting. Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could clarify it for me.

As you can guess, my theory eliminates your concern. In my theory, satan did indeed become corrupted, and his punishment is due him.

But, even if I were to argue that he's always been a faithful testing-angel, I don't think his eventual punishment is catastrophic to such a belief. God could simply be communicating that the role will no longer be necessary. The testing agent will be no more. Revelation is a very symbolic book, after all (though I'm sure that won't sit well with you).

Once again, I'd like to remind everyone that I'm not 100% sold on my own theory. I just think it's got as much, or more, biblical support than the traditional view. It's also got some problems I've yet to work out, just like the traditional view. I appreciate all the feedback.

In Christ,
matthew

RogerW
Aug 28th 2008, 08:07 PM
So you are saying Satan is not really bad but only doing what God would have him to do? I am probably wrong but it sounds like that is what you and Roger W are saying. The biggest problem I have with that theory is that scripture in Revelation says that Satan is going to be tormented in the lake of fire. So God is going to cast a being into the lake of fire for doing what God wanted him to do? I see far more problems with that theory than the traditional view - that yhe devil was a good angel who became bad on his own and not by God's prompting. Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could clarify it for me.

Why do you find it so hard to believe that God uses evil to accomplish His purposes? Who are these vessels of wrath fitted to destruction? Created simply to make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which were prepared for mercy.

Ro 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Ro 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Ro 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Does God using Satan to accomplish His purposes absolve him of his evil? God is not the author of sin, but as shown in the example of Pharaoh, God does indeed use sin and evil to accomplish His will. Both Satan, and Pharaoh are judged for the evil they loved. God did not make them love evil and wickedness, He simply uses what their wicked hearts conspire to carry out His redemptive purposes.

Many Blessings,
RW

cwb
Aug 28th 2008, 08:59 PM
Why do you find it so hard to believe that God uses evil to accomplish His purposes? RW


Because if God made somebody evil to accomplish His purposes, that woiuld make God Himself evil. I never said God never uses the wicked to accomplish His prurposes. As you said in the rest of your post, it is not God who made them to love evil and wickedness. Judas wouild be another example as well. The only point I was making was that the wicked (including Satan himself) became wicked of their own choosing. God did not make them that way.

legoman
Aug 28th 2008, 09:17 PM
Because if God made somebody evil to accomplish His purposes, that woiuld make God Himself evil. I never said God never uses the wicked to accomplish His prurposes. As you said in the rest of your post, it is not God who made them to love evil and wickedness. Judas wouild be another example as well. The only point I was making was that the wicked (including Satan himself) became wicked of their own choosing. God did not make them that way.

I really hate to repeat myself :) but you need to read the scriptures that have been posted in this thread that clearly say God created the devil and the devil was wicked from the beginning (Isaiah 54:16, 1 John 3:8, Genesis 3:1).

Here is another one I just found:

Job 26:13 By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.

This is the serpent God created back in Genesis 3:1 aka Satan.

And don't forget good old Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

So there shouldn't really be any argument. You just need to get over your own preconceptions (it is tough I know). There can be NO doubt - God creates evil, God created Satan, God created Satan to sin, Satan sinned from the BEGINNING.

cwb
Aug 28th 2008, 09:19 PM
But I also consider the view that he been faithful to his role as tempter the whole time to be defensible. I just don't happen to think it makes the most biblical sense.



matthew

Jesus Christ said the devil is the father of lies. This tells me that he was not made for the role of lying but but it is the devil who is the starter of lying.




John 8:44
Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.



To me, this tells me that when the devil tempted eve, the devil was not playing some role God wanted him to play but was in fact doing something God did not want him to do.


As you can guess, my theory eliminates your concern. In my theory, satan did indeed become corrupted, and his punishment is due him.


At what time did he come corrupted? The fact that he lied to Eve tells me it was at some time before that.



Once again, I'd like to remind everyone that I'm not 100% sold on my own theory.


To be honest with you, when reading through this thread, I am still a little confused about exactly what your theory is. Could you clarify that?

matthew94
Aug 28th 2008, 10:00 PM
My theory is as follows

Whereas the traditional view of satan's origin stands on questionable eisegesis
Whereas the traditional view cannot adequately explain the original sin of satan
Whereas numerous passages can be presented to show God tests mankind
Whereas God and the satan seem to have a working relationship in many passages

I resolve that...
The satan was created as a testing-angel/agent
The satan was corrupted (took un-directed pride/passion in his role) as time passed
The satan's role is still viewed as worthwhile by God
The satan will, one day, no longer be necessary

It is just a theory. I feel it deals best with all the relevant data, but it still doesn't seem to fit with a couple of verses. Time will tell.

VerticalReality
Aug 28th 2008, 11:39 PM
My theory is as follows

Whereas the traditional view of satan's origin stands on questionable eisegesis
Whereas the traditional view cannot adequately explain the original sin of satan
Whereas numerous passages can be presented to show God tests mankind
Whereas God and the satan seem to have a working relationship in many passages

I resolve that...
The satan was created as a testing-angel/agent
The satan was corrupted (took un-directed pride/passion in his role) as time passed
The satan's role is still viewed as worthwhile by God
The satan will, one day, no longer be necessary

It is just a theory. I feel it deals best with all the relevant data, but it still doesn't seem to fit with a couple of verses. Time will tell.

Just wondering, though . . .

If Satan was created to do evil things why would it be possible for him to be corrupted? Corruption seems to be his entire purpose. Is he not doing what he was created to do in this view?

matthew94
Aug 29th 2008, 01:10 AM
Just wondering, though . . .

If Satan was created to do evil things why would it be possible for him to be corrupted? Corruption seems to be his entire purpose. Is he not doing what he was created to do in this view?

I wouldn't say Satan was created to do evil things. I'd say he was created to test people as to whether they would do evil things. For example, when a teacher makes a multiple choice test, they might provide 3 false answers and 1 true answer. The test-maker is, therefore, creating lies. But the grand purpose is not to have the student fail the test. Quite the opposite! My theory is that satan was created in the roll of test-giver. But in the course of time, it is possible that he became prideful at the deceptiveness of his false answers (trick questions?). It's also possible he became prideful at the number of students 'kept back a grade' so to speak. Perhaps students, kept in his class, began to like him, and even worship him in various forms. What's more, he, as a test-giver, began to realize that the school will soon be closed and so he's trying to keep as many students, now, as possible.

Just an illustration that may help convey what I'm trying to theorize.

cwb
Aug 29th 2008, 01:42 AM
My theory is as follows

Whereas the traditional view of satan's origin stands on questionable eisegesis
Whereas the traditional view cannot adequately explain the original sin of satan
Whereas numerous passages can be presented to show God tests mankind
Whereas God and the satan seem to have a working relationship in many passages

I resolve that...
The satan was created as a testing-angel/agent
The satan was corrupted (took un-directed pride/passion in his role) as time passed
The satan's role is still viewed as worthwhile by God
The satan will, one day, no longer be necessary

It is just a theory. I feel it deals best with all the relevant data, but it still doesn't seem to fit with a couple of verses. Time will tell.

When did the devil become corrupt according to your theory.

divaD
Aug 29th 2008, 01:53 AM
I'd say he was created to test people as to whether they would do evil
things.


In order to even begin to understand where you're comimg from, I have to wonder when you think satan was created, because you stated that he was created to test people. The Bible shows that people were created 6-15,000 yrs ago, depending on who's view one takes when counting generations, etc. Some views put Adam at being created some 6-7 thousand yrs ago, other views place it around 14,000 or so.

Do you think satan was made around the same time as Adam, irregardless if it was 6 or 14 thousand yrs ago?

But if you think satan was created way before Adam, say.. like billions of eons before, doesn't that sort of put a hole in your theory that he was created to test man? What did he do before man was even created, if his main role was to test men?

crush
Aug 29th 2008, 01:57 AM
I don't think that Satan was created to be evil *coughs* Eze says he was "perfect in all his ways" at first.


Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.I think that when it's said that Satan was a "liar from the beginning", that is referencing the lie he told Eve in the Garden, and that is when the iniquity was found out.

After Satan's first "sin" the Lord lays a convienient curse on him that will intertwine his destiny with ours, and also serve the Lord's purpose in purifying his sheep in their fallen state. To crawl on his belly [walk the earth] and eat the dust [US! Our flesh bodies!] Gen 3:14


1Pe 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:So I don't necessarily think that God created Satan to do evil, however, the fact that Satan sinned made the Evil that he does of Use to the Lord.
To put it simply, if Satan didn't Sin, mankind probably wouldn't have fallen, and no "tester" would have been necessary against an unfallen [perfect] man [Adam]

So it's probably just a case of God having a plan, and a back-up plan LOL. Of course since the Father, knowing all that would transpire from the beginning, the back-up plan was actually the real plan all along. LOL

But, on the other hand, there is a very strong argument to be made that God was a strong facilitator of the Original Sins that occurred in the Garden, after all, he set up the opportunity!

cwb
Aug 29th 2008, 02:01 AM
I really hate to repeat myself :) but you need to read the scriptures that have been posted in this thread that clearly say God created the devil and the devil was wicked from the beginning (Isaiah 54:16, 1 John 3:8, Genesis 3:1).

Here is another one I just found:

Job 26:13 By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.

This is the serpent God created back in Genesis 3:1 aka Satan.

And don't forget good old Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

So there shouldn't really be any argument. You just need to get over your own preconceptions (it is tough I know). There can be NO doubt - God creates evil, God created Satan, God created Satan to sin, Satan sinned from the BEGINNING.


Sure God created the devil but He created Him perfect - not as a liar and murderer. The devil became a murderer and a liar by his own bad decision. God did not make him that way. Why would God cast Him into the lake of fire if he is merely doing what God created Him to do?


If God originally created the devil to lie, murder and decieve, wouldn't God say in the end, "Well done, thou wise and faithful servant" rather than throwing him in the lake of fire. The devil is a liar and a murderer and now wants to blame God for what he does. Hey, people do the same thing. When they do their wickednes, they say they do it because this is the way God made me. Just another lie from the father of lies.

cwb
Aug 29th 2008, 02:10 AM
Mathew94,
Back to something you said in your orignal post



When we sin, there are 3 provoking factors
1) The fallen nature (sinful nature)
2) The fallen world (peer pressure)
3) The tempter (satan and/or demons)



Just for clarification, are you saying that a human being can not sin unless they are provoked?

divaD
Aug 29th 2008, 02:15 AM
Sure God created the devil but He created Him perfect - not as a liar and murderer.


Unless one believes that satan was created around the same time as man, whom would satan then have been a murderer of, if he was a murderer from the beginning? At that point in time, there would have been nothing but spirit beings. So how does one murder a spirit being?

Those that believe satan was created in this condition, they can't square the above fact with Scripture, unless they hold to a view that satan was created around the time man was.

markedward
Aug 29th 2008, 02:16 AM
I don't think that Satan was created to be evil *coughs* Eze says he was "perfect in all his ways" at first.No. Ezekiel says the king of Tyre was "perfect in all his ways." Ezekiel doesn't mention Satan in any manner.

To be able to understand Satan, we must first discern which verses are and aren't about Satan.

Quick reasons why Ezekiel was not referring to Satan:

Ezekiel specifically says he is speaking of a man. The human "king of Tyre."
Ezekiel is a prophet, and hence uses a great amount of prophetic imagery: the valley of dry bones, for instance. Calling the king of Tyre "cherub" and saying he was in "Eden" does not suddenly mean he was speaking an actual cherub or of the actual Eden. He was describing how lofty and rich the king of Tyre was: He was so elevated, Ezekiel describes him as a cherub, the "most holy" being we see in Scripture (next to God). He was so elevated, Ezekiel describes him as being in Eden, the paradise of paradises. Basically, Ezekiel was using well-known imagery in hyperbole to describe the king of Tyre.
Satan is seen amongst angels (read Job 1 and 2). He leads one third of the angels in rebellion, and is thus contrasted to Michael the archangel (Revelation 12). He is seen verbally contending with Michael the archangel (Jude). Bluntly, Scripture supports the well-founded view that Satan is an angel. Cherubs and angels are not the same thing. Cherubs are described as, well, something too hard to imagine (four to six wings, multiple faces, wheels intersecting wheels, etc.), while angels are described as looking like men (Genesis, Daniel, etc.). If Satan is an angel, then is plainly not a cherub, which Ezekiel refers to. Thus, Ezekiel couldn't be referring to Satan.

To crawl on his belly [walk the earth]Here you are directly linking the serpent's curse with Satan being kicked out of heaven.

Revelation 12 explicitly shows Satan and his third of the angels being kicked out of heaven after Jesus had already ascended to God's right hand, so the curse on the serpent could not possibly be referring to Satan being confined to walk the earth.

What little OT Scripture there is that explicitly refers to Satan, he is seen as a tempter and accuser of man's sins (Job 1 and 2, Zechariah... something). But NT scripture also explicitly says that Satan is only kicked out of heaven after Jesus' ascension, not thousands of years before, in the time of Adam.

crush
Aug 29th 2008, 02:39 AM
Hi Mark,


No. Ezekiel says the king of Tyre was "perfect in all his ways." Ezekiel doesn't mention Satan in any manner.

To be able to understand Satan, we must first discern which verses are and aren't about Satan.

Quick reasons why Ezekiel was not referring to Satan:

Ezekiel specifically says he is speaking of a man. The human "king of Tyre."
Ezekiel is a prophet, and hence uses a great amount of prophetic imagery: the valley of dry bones, for instance. Calling the king of Tyre "cherub" and saying he was in "Eden" does not suddenly mean he was speaking an actual cherub or of the actual Eden. He was describing how lofty and rich the king of Tyre was: He was so elevated, Ezekiel describes him as a cherub, the "most holy" being we see in Scripture (next to God). He was so elevated, Ezekiel describes him as being in Eden, the paradise of paradises. Basically, Ezekiel was using well-known imagery in hyperbole to describe the king of Tyre.
Satan is seen amongst angels (read Job 1 and 2). He leads one third of the angels in rebellion, and is thus contrasted to Michael the archangel (Revelation 12). He is seen verbally contending with Michael the archangel (Jude). Bluntly, Scripture supports the well-founded view that Satan is an angel. Cherubs and angels are not the same thing. Cherubs are described as, well, something too hard to imagine (four to six wings, multiple faces, wheels intersecting wheels, etc.), while angels are described as looking like men (Genesis, Daniel, etc.). If Satan is an angel, then is plainly not a cherub, which Ezekiel refers to. Thus, Ezek

1) The King of Tyre wasn't ever in the Garden of Eden - Only God - Adam - Eve - The Serpent, I really can't see writing Eze 28:13-15 off as "prophetic imagery"

2) Satan isn't referred to as an "Angel", anywhere that I'm aware of, if I'm incorrect about this please produce a scripture.
ahh, NM, I remember why he's thought of as an "angel", Because he transforms into one LOL.

[2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

3) I certainly DO NOT think that the Curse Confined Satan to the Earth LOL. You can click back a page and read my other post (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1766367#post1766367).

Although the curse requires Satan, to seek whom he may devour - he still has to Go before the Lord and seek permission as we see in the Job model.

VerticalReality
Aug 29th 2008, 03:24 AM
I wouldn't say Satan was created to do evil things. I'd say he was created to test people as to whether they would do evil things. For example, when a teacher makes a multiple choice test, they might provide 3 false answers and 1 true answer. The test-maker is, therefore, creating lies. But the grand purpose is not to have the student fail the test. Quite the opposite! My theory is that satan was created in the roll of test-giver. But in the course of time, it is possible that he became prideful at the deceptiveness of his false answers (trick questions?). It's also possible he became prideful at the number of students 'kept back a grade' so to speak. Perhaps students, kept in his class, began to like him, and even worship him in various forms. What's more, he, as a test-giver, began to realize that the school will soon be closed and so he's trying to keep as many students, now, as possible.

Just an illustration that may help convey what I'm trying to theorize.

I'm following you . . .

But wouldn't this view kind of be the same as the "Satan was a good angel that went bad" view that you stated you don't know has much Scriptural support?

markedward
Aug 29th 2008, 03:49 AM
1) The King of Tyre wasn't ever in the Garden of Eden - Only God - Adam - Eve - The Serpent, I really can't see writing Eze 28:13-15 off as "prophetic imagery".Not to be confusing... but this argument doesn't make much sense.

You use "The king of Tyre wasn't ever in the Garden of Eden" as a reason for "I really can't see as prophetic imagery." This is circular logic... If it [I]is prophetic imagery then the king of Tyre didn't need to have ever been in Eden... because it's imagery.

Let's examine the text point by point together. I'll present why I believe Ezekiel 28 doesn't refer to Satan, you, if you please, present why you do.

First
What is the context of Ezekiel 28? Well, one could say the king of Tyre. But what else? Judgment. Zoom out to the surrounding chapters: judgment. Upon... earthly nations. Cush, Egypt, etc. Multiple earthly peoples and nations are mentioned, so by context, Point 1 is that Ezekiel is prophecying judgment upon earthly peoples, so that the king of Tyre is included in the middle of these judgments lends credence to Ezekiel prophesying about a man and not a heavenly being.

Second
Who does Ezekiel explicitly (that is, clearly and plainly) say the king of Tyre is?

28:2 "But you are a man and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god."

28:9 "You will be but a man, not a god, in the hands of those who slay you."

Two times does God (the above are God speaking, not Ezekiel) call the king of Tyre a man. Point 2 lends credence to Ezekiel prophesying about a man and not a heavenly being.

Third
Who does Ezekiel implicitly (that is, implied or inferred) say the king of Tyre is?

28:4-5 - The king of Tyre has gained material wealth through trade.

28:7 - The king of Tyre is subject to the wrath of foreign nations.

28:16 - The king of Tyre is stated to be corrupted "through [his] widespread trade."

28:19 - The king of Tyre is "consumed" by "fire" on account of his "sins and dishonest trade."

Three of the four verses I refer to specifically link the king of Tyre's pride to his trade and material wealth, and one of them says he will be brought to the sword by the hands of foreigners. Since when did Satan have "widespread trade"? Since when was Satan "filled with violence" as a result of his "widespread trade"? These implicitly tell us that the king of Tyre is a mere man, not a heavenly being. Point 3 lends credence to Ezekiel prophesying about a man and not a heavenly being.

Four
Much of prophecy is non-literal or metaphoric. Joel prophesies about locusts overcoming Jerusalem, but a careful reading shows he's merely making a parallel between the total devastation of a locust plague and an invasion of armies. And prophecy is filled with such non-literal/metaphoric imagery (The Revelation probably being the most heavily dense).

Considering that Ezekiel is told to prophecy about the king of Tyre, and is not told that this king of Tyre is anything other than a man, it is perfectly acceptable to read forward as if he is prophesying about a man.

And we find just that: the king of Tyre was full of himself. He considered himself full of wisdom and understanding (28:4), and as a result of this wisdom and understanding he became materially wealthy (28:4-5). But the king of Tyre prided himself on how is wisdom brought him so much wealth (28:4-5). His pride grew and grew, until eventually "wickedness was found in [him]." It was "[his] widespread trade" that "[he was] filled with violence."

Essentially it went as this...

The king of Tyre was wise. He used this wisdom in "widespread trade" and amassed a fortune of material wealth. He became prideful of his wisdom and wealth. And thus became wicked and filled with violence.

So as a result, God describes him as such, as a cherub (comparing the king of Tyre to his particularly elevated status), covered in gemstones (comparing him to his vast material wealth), living in Eden (comparing his rich lifestyle to the earthly paradise). Given the hyperbolic and metaphoric nature of much of Hebrew Scripture (re: David's description of God in 2 Samuel 22, or Jesus' description of how easy it is to enter the Kingdom in Matthew 19, for examples), it's not impossible that the king of Tyre should be described as cherub. The Pharisees were never really vipers. Satan was never really a lion. Jesus was never really a lamb. Point 4 lends credence to Ezekiel prophesying about a man and not a heavenly being.

Five
The king of Tyre is described as elevating himself to being "a god" or as wise as "a god." The popular conception is that this is Satan trying to overthrow God's throne or something similar... but then again, the culture and time period in which the king of Tyre lived in is infamous for powerful rulers making themselves out to be gods. The pharaohs, the kings, the emperors, from Rome to Greece to Egypt to Assyria to Babylon to... Tyre. It's not only not unheard of... it was common for rulers to deify themselves. Point 5 lends credence to Ezekiel prophesying about a man and not a heavenly being.

From examining the passage, I can find five reasons why Ezekiel wasn't describing Satan, and as a result, for why Ezekiel 28 cannot be used as Scripture to find understanding into the existence of Satan.

Most Specifically
The thing I found that most strongly argues against Satan being depicted in Ezekiel 28 are verses 28:15-16.


You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.This is God speaking here.

He states that the king of Tyre (whom He had just called a "guardian cherub" in the verse before) had been found with "wickedness." From this, God transitions into talking about trade. God then states that it was "widespread trade" that was the source of the king of Tyre's violence, and as a direct result, causes the king of Tyre to sin. "So" God drove the "guardian cherub" king of Tyre from the mount of God, from among the fiery stones. The "so" directly links the "guardian cherub's" wickedness to the violence and sin that was caused by the "widespread trade."

How does this reflect a heavenly being such as Satan in any way? It just doesn't... but it perfectly fits the king of Tyre, if one is willing to admit not just the possibility, but the probability that the "guardian cherub" passage is used as metaphoric for the king of Tyre's life.

Mograce2U
Aug 29th 2008, 04:22 AM
My question is, where did his pride come from? :)

The most common answers I've gotten over the years are 'pride' and 'free-will.' But I don't think either answer answers the question. They just re-state the problem.

When I have pride it comes from my fallen nature, or from worldly influence, or from a tempter. Satan had no source for his pride that I'm aware of.Pride and covetousness go hand in hand. Satan was the covering cherub and the worship leader in heaven. There was no one higher than him except God. Satan wanted the one thing that was forbidden to him - which is no doubt why he used that tactic to tempt Eve. And covetousness is more than mere greed since it involves wanting to take away from the person who possesses the desired thing so that they cannot have it either. Its more of the "if I can't have it then I will see to it that you can't have it either" kinda thing. And because God was pleased with His creation, Satan wanted to destroy it. The evil eye is covetousness and this is where Satan's pride led him.

Merton
Aug 29th 2008, 05:16 AM
Not to be confusing... but this argument doesn't make much sense.

You use "The king of Tyre wasn't ever in the Garden of Eden" as a reason for "I really can't see as prophetic imagery." This is circular logic... If it [I]is prophetic imagery then the king of Tyre didn't need to have ever been in Eden... because it's imagery.

Let's examine the text point by point together. I'll present why I believe Ezekiel 28 doesn't refer to Satan, you, if you please, present why you do.

First
What is the context of Ezekiel 28? Well, one could say the king of Tyre. But what else? Judgment. Zoom out to the surrounding chapters: judgment. Upon... earthly nations. Cush, Egypt, etc. Multiple earthly peoples and nations are mentioned, so by context, Point 1 is that Ezekiel is prophecying judgment upon earthly peoples, so that the king of Tyre is included in the middle of these judgments lends credence to Ezekiel prophesying about a man and not a heavenly being.

Second
Who does Ezekiel explicitly (that is, clearly and plainly) say the king of Tyre is?

28:2 "But you are a man and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god."

28:9 "You will be but a man, not a god, in the hands of those who slay you."

Two times does God (the above are God speaking, not Ezekiel) call the king of Tyre a man. Point 2 lends credence to Ezekiel prophesying about a man and not a heavenly being.

Third
Who does Ezekiel implicitly (that is, implied or inferred) say the king of Tyre is?

28:4-5 - The king of Tyre has gained material wealth through trade.

28:7 - The king of Tyre is subject to the wrath of foreign nations.

28:16 - The king of Tyre is stated to be corrupted "through [his] widespread trade."

28:19 - The king of Tyre is "consumed" by "fire" on account of his "sins and dishonest trade."

Three of the four verses I refer to specifically link the king of Tyre's pride to his trade and material wealth, and one of them says he will be brought to the sword by the hands of foreigners. Since when did Satan have "widespread trade"? Since when was Satan "filled with violence" as a result of his "widespread trade"? These implicitly tell us that the king of Tyre is a mere man, not a heavenly being. Point 3 lends credence to Ezekiel prophesying about a man and not a heavenly being.

Four
Much of prophecy is non-literal or metaphoric. Joel prophesies about locusts overcoming Jerusalem, but a careful reading shows he's merely making a parallel between the total devastation of a locust plague and an invasion of armies. And prophecy is filled with such non-literal/metaphoric imagery (The Revelation probably being the most heavily dense).

Considering that Ezekiel is told to prophecy about the king of Tyre, and is not told that this king of Tyre is anything other than a man, it is perfectly acceptable to read forward as if he is prophesying about a man.

And we find just that: the king of Tyre was full of himself. He considered himself full of wisdom and understanding (28:4), and as a result of this wisdom and understanding he became materially wealthy (28:4-5). But the king of Tyre prided himself on how is wisdom brought him so much wealth (28:4-5). His pride grew and grew, until eventually "wickedness was found in [him]." It was "[his] widespread trade" that "[he was] filled with violence."

Essentially it went as this...

The king of Tyre was wise. He used this wisdom in "widespread trade" and amassed a fortune of material wealth. He became prideful of his wisdom and wealth. And thus became wicked and filled with violence.

So as a result, God describes him as such, as a cherub (comparing the king of Tyre to his particularly elevated status), covered in gemstones (comparing him to his vast material wealth), living in Eden (comparing his rich lifestyle to the earthly paradise). Given the hyperbolic and metaphoric nature of much of Hebrew Scripture (re: David's description of God in 2 Samuel 22, or Jesus' description of how easy it is to enter the Kingdom in Matthew 19, for examples), it's not impossible that the king of Tyre should be described as cherub. The Pharisees were never really vipers. Satan was never really a lion. Jesus was never really a lamb. Point 4 lends credence to Ezekiel prophesying about a man and not a heavenly being.

Five
The king of Tyre is described as elevating himself to being "a god" or as wise as "a god." The popular conception is that this is Satan trying to overthrow God's throne or something similar... but then again, the culture and time period in which the king of Tyre lived in is infamous for powerful rulers making themselves out to be gods. The pharaohs, the kings, the emperors, from Rome to Greece to Egypt to Assyria to Babylon to... Tyre. It's not only not unheard of... it was common for rulers to deify themselves. Point 5 lends credence to Ezekiel prophesying about a man and not a heavenly being.

From examining the passage, I can find five reasons why Ezekiel wasn't describing Satan, and as a result, for why Ezekiel 28 cannot be used as Scripture to find understanding into the existence of Satan.

Most Specifically
The thing I found that most strongly argues against Satan being depicted in Ezekiel 28 are verses 28:15-16.

This is God speaking here.

He states that the king of Tyre (whom He had just called a "guardian cherub" in the verse before) had been found with "wickedness." From this, God transitions into talking about trade. God then states that it was "widespread trade" that was the source of the king of Tyre's violence, and as a direct result, causes the king of Tyre to sin. "So" God drove the "guardian cherub" king of Tyre from the mount of God, from among the fiery stones. The "so" directly links the "guardian cherub's" wickedness to the violence and sin that was caused by the "widespread trade."

How does this reflect a heavenly being such as Satan in any way? It just doesn't... but it perfectly fits the king of Tyre, if one is willing to admit not just the possibility, but the probability that the "guardian cherub" passage is used as metaphoric for the king of Tyre's life.



Notice how those verses perfectly describe our own time.

It can even be a satanic idea that big bad Russia is the one who opposes God the most, described in the Bible to elevate themselves in the endtimes, instead of ourselves of the western nations.

Some other general comments-


Can someone show me the scripture which says that satan sinned or sins?

The dragon of Rev.12 can not be satan alone but a whole spiritual institution among man. The tail alone speaks of the false prophets.

The heaven in rev.12 from which satan is cast out of is a spiritual domain on earth among men.(same as in the time of Job)

Satan can not be in The Heaven now, or ever has been, as a created spirit which opposes everything that God says (there can be no lie without a truth) could not be in the Heaven ever.

Satan is not a man so his casting into hell should not be thought of as if he is a man.

Human pride is not a sin, but to live according to it as supreme is. Inflated pride is not normal pride because pride itself is in the created creature from the beginning of him. I have never known anyone not to have pride for every man loves himself according to Paul. It is the elevating of oneself above God that is so sinful and satan is ever ready to help one do that if that is what they want to do.

Self abasment is not humility and the Christian religion has at times presented humility as being just that.

Eve sinned because God made her capable of it, and set it up so, but the sin of Adam was that he could not refuse Eve (not satan).

This can only be because man can not be made in the image of God (the finished eternal design) without man refusing the evil of placing himself above his creator. Adam could not do this from the standpoint of his created being at the first, but could from what he was after he sinned and then accepted the remedy for his sin through the revelation of the true nature of God given to him, and his acceptance of it, which he was incapable of before he sinned.

My own understanding given me by asking the question of why all this sin of a sinfull world is--

If God could have done it another way to accomplish his aims, then He would have.


I will also say that it is furtherest from Gods intention that we should think of sin as being the fault of the devil, or that it is of any benefit to man to understand all of mysteries of the spiritual realms apart from what the Bible does state.(so why add ideas to it)

Hints-

Satan is not an angel and never was, and the angels locked up in tartarus awaiting judgment are men of angelic majesty who did sin.

Merton.

Ethnikos
Aug 29th 2008, 05:41 AM
I can tell you the myth that I was taught. There were two covering cherubs of the throne of God, in heaven. One was Jesus and one was Lucifer.
When God created the world, God proclaimed that all the beings of the universe should acknowledge Jesus as higher than all creation because he was not a created being. Jesus was the actual son of God. Lucifer did not see how Jesus was any better than him and decided he should be a god, himself, if Jesus was.
So, Lucifer went about presenting his case to all the inhabitants of creation to get them to go over to his side. Once he had a loyal following, he commenced throwing all kinds of accusations against God. His prized victory over God would be to get the center piece of God's creation to follow him. That was the two people living in the Garden that God had made with his own hands.
Like I said, this is the myth and it seems to explain a lot about evil and where it comes from.

matthew94
Aug 29th 2008, 06:10 AM
CWB asked...

When did the devil become corrupt according to your theory

Well, he's been doing a work that some would label 'corruptive' from the beginning. His work included false answers (like on a multiple choice test) and temptations to go against God's will (sinning). But I think a case can be made that he was faithfully performing this negative (though ordained) role throughout the Old Testament. But in the course of the OT, perhaps, he noticed that his tests were very successful. People were, in fact, offering worship to him, a mere angel. Perhaps his pride was piqued by the fallen world. Perhaps the fall reached even him. So that by the time Jesus rolled around, while still performing his role to some degree, he was now wanting to stop Jesus from becoming King. Part of him, perhaps, wanted to be King. So he tried to kill the baby Jesus, but failed. He tried to tempt Him prior to His ministry, but failed again. He tried to kill Him, and succeeded! But alas, his greatest victory turned out to be his greatest failure. He was enraged and set out to destroy Christ's followers, especially once he realized that his time was now short.

I hope that answers your question.

DivaD asked...

In order to even begin to understand where you're comimg from, I have to wonder when you think satan was created, because you stated that he was created to test people. The Bible shows that people were created 6-15,000 yrs ago, depending on who's view one takes when counting generations, etc. Some views put Adam at being created some 6-7 thousand yrs ago, other views place it around 14,000 or so.

Do you think satan was made around the same time as Adam, irregardless if it was 6 or 14 thousand yrs ago?

But if you think satan was created way before Adam, say.. like billions of eons before, doesn't that sort of put a hole in your theory that he was created to test man? What did he do before man was even created, if his main role was to test men?

I am a young earth creationist. I believe all the angels and satan were created within a literal creation week.

* Note that the poster 'crush' used Ezekiel 28 as his main text for formulating a doctrine of satan's origin.

CWB asked...

Just for clarification, are you saying that a human being can not sin unless they are provoked?

I think it's a safe assumption. But we have no way of knowing for sure. Such a situation has never existed. Even before the serpent showed up, the humans had a 'test' in the form of a tree. But it seems, even then, they would never have fallen had it not been for a 'tester'. You can speculate that they would have fallen even without the serpent. But I'm not sure how anyone could know such a thing.

In other words, if you want to argue that 'free will' minus any negative influence, is enough to produce sin, then A) You are claiming something true which we have no evidence of and B) You are opening yourself up to the possibility of sin in eternity.

VerticalReality asked...

I'm following you . . .

But wouldn't this view kind of be the same as the "Satan was a good angel that went bad" view that you stated you don't know has much Scriptural support?

It's not ENTIRELY different (my goal was not to theorize something crazy and shocking, but to theorize something that answered my questions while fitting with Scripture). I find my theory, while being somewhat similar to the traditional view, fixes three errors that stem from the traditional view.

1) My theory explains HOW satan 'went bad' (the problem pointed out in my opening post). The traditional view must say that free will alone can create sin (without a provoking element). But my view has satan's corruption occuring after the fall (with various provoking agents).

2) My theory elminates what I consider to be an unnecessarily HIGH view of satan, held by many evangelicals (that he was a great angel, perhaps even the worship leader in heaven). I find that evangelicals give satan FAR too much credit b/c of the traditional view. My theory doesn't view him as a formerly awesome angel, but just as an angel with a specific role, and one that wasn't smart enough to keep performing it as directed.

3) My theory places a much greater value on tests, trials & tribulation in this life (in contrast to many who preach 'health and wealth' and that pain is an evil thing. Note how prominent the traditonal view of satan is in such circles). Trials, in my view, are so important that God never intended for them not to exist (after all, He placed the tree in the garden before the serpent ever showed up).

Mograce2u said...

Pride and covetousness go hand in hand. Satan was the covering cherub and the worship leader in heaven. There was no one higher than him except God. Satan wanted the one thing that was forbidden to him - which is no doubt why he used that tactic to tempt Eve. And covetousness is more than mere greed since it involves wanting to take away from the person who possesses the desired thing so that they cannot have it either. Its more of the "if I can't have it then I will see to it that you can't have it either" kinda thing. And because God was pleased with His creation, Satan wanted to destroy it. The evil eye is covetousness and this is where Satan's pride led him.

This is a perfect example of what I am arguing against. Note how HIGH a view of Satan this poster has. He believes that satan was the worship leader of heaven. This has absolutely ZERO scriptural grounds. It's based entirely on Ezekiel 28:13, but A) that passage isn't even about satan and B) even if it were, it doesn't say he was a worship leader and C) the kjv which makes people make that error isn't even a good translation on that particular verse. The poster has such a high view of satan, in fact, that he makes satan out to be the 2nd greatest being in the universe!

If I were to hold to the traditional view, I'd be much more inclined to agree with Augustine who believed that satan was the DUMBEST of all the angels. Certainly not the greatest. Augustine said only one of the lowest and least intelligent angels could have been so stupid as to rebel against God.

Thanks for all the feedback everyone!

crush
Aug 29th 2008, 06:19 AM
What is the context of Ezekiel 28? Well, one could say the king of Tyre. But what else? Judgment. Zoom out to the surrounding chapters: judgment. Upon... earthly nations. Cush, Egypt, etc. Multiple earthly peoples and nations are mentioned, so by context, Point 1 is that Ezekiel is prophecying judgment upon earthly peoples, so that the king of Tyre is included in the middle of these judgments lends credence to Ezekiel prophesying about a man and not a heavenly being.

I would qualify these nations as representing "worldly" nations.....



Who does Ezekiel explicitly (that is, clearly and plainly) say the king of Tyre is?

28:2 "But you are a man and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god."

28:9 "You will be but a man, not a god, in the hands of those who slay you."

Two times does God (the above are God speaking, not Ezekiel) call the king of Tyre a man. Point 2 lends credence to Ezekiel prophesying about a man and not a heavenly being.Eze 28:2-11 is a prophecy against the "prince" of tyre, which I don't disagree is a man, or a "son" [of perdition] LOL

Eze 28:12-19 is a prophecy against the "king" of tyre, which I believe is Satan



Who does Ezekiel implicitly (that is, implied or inferred) say the king of Tyre is?

28:4-5 - The king of Tyre has gained material wealth through trade.

28:7 - The king of Tyre is subject to the wrath of foreign nations.

28:16 - The king of Tyre is stated to be corrupted "through [his] widespread trade."

28:19 - The king of Tyre is "consumed" by "fire" on account of his "sins and dishonest trade."

Three of the four verses I refer to specifically link the king of Tyre's pride to his trade and material wealth, and one of them says he will be brought to the sword by the hands of foreigners. Since when did Satan have "widespread trade"? Since when was Satan "filled with violence" as a result of his "widespread trade"? These implicitly tell us that the king of Tyre is a mere man, not a heavenly being. Point 3 lends credence to Ezekiel prophesying about a man and not a heavenly being.Satan offered to Give Jesus ALL the kingdoms of the world if he would worship him. I doubt this temptation would have much appeal unless Satan was the owner of these kingdoms. So he is/was rich LOL Matthew 4:8-9




Much of prophecy is non-literal or metaphoric. Joel prophesies about locusts overcoming Jerusalem, but a careful reading shows he's merely making a parallel between the total devastation of a locust plague and an invasion of armies. And prophecy is filled with such non-literal/metaphoric imagery (The Revelation probably being the most heavily dense).

Considering that Ezekiel is told to prophecy about the king of Tyre, and is not told that this king of Tyre is anything other than a man, it is perfectly acceptable to read forward as if he is prophesying about a man.

And we find just that: the king of Tyre was full of himself. He considered himself full of wisdom and understanding (28:4), and as a result of this wisdom and understanding he became materially wealthy (28:4-5). But the king of Tyre prided himself on how is wisdom brought him so much wealth (28:4-5). His pride grew and grew, until eventually "wickedness was found in [him]." It was "[his] widespread trade" that "[he was] filled with violence."

Essentially it went as this...

The king of Tyre was wise. He used this wisdom in "widespread trade" and amassed a fortune of material wealth. He became prideful of his wisdom and wealth. And thus became wicked and filled with violence.

So as a result, God describes him as such, as a cherub (comparing the king of Tyre to his particularly elevated status), covered in gemstones (comparing him to his vast material wealth), living in Eden (comparing his rich lifestyle to the earthly paradise). Given the hyperbolic and metaphoric nature of much of Hebrew Scripture (re: David's description of God in 2 Samuel 22, or Jesus' description of how easy it is to enter the Kingdom in Matthew 19, for examples), it's not impossible that the king of Tyre should be described as cherub. The Pharisees were never really vipers. Satan was never really a lion. Jesus was never really a lamb. Point 4 lends credence to Ezekiel prophesying about a man and not a heavenly being.When Satan "literally" fits the description in Eze 28:12-19, I don't know why you'd try and find an alternate explanation. Granted, the lives of most of the people featured in Bible stories have a larger or prophetical application as well as being an actual story that happened to them literally, so I'm not trying to deny that this prophecy was also against the actual human King of Tyre.

ex. Poor Jonas spent 3 days in the belly of the fish, but this turned out to be a prophetical representation of Christ's time in the tomb....

So I don't see any problem with this prophecy pertaining to BOTH the King of Tyre and Satan...



The king of Tyre is described as elevating himself to being "a god" or as wise as "a god." The popular conception is that this is Satan trying to overthrow God's throne or something similar... but then again, the culture and time period in which the king of Tyre lived in is infamous for powerful rulers making themselves out to be gods. The pharaohs, the kings, the emperors, from Rome to Greece to Egypt to Assyria to Babylon to... Tyre. It's not only not unheard of... it was common for rulers to deify themselves. Point 5 lends credence to Ezekiel prophesying about a man and not a heavenly being.

From examining the passage, I can find five reasons why Ezekiel wasn't describing Satan, and as a result, for why Ezekiel 28 cannot be used as Scripture to find understanding into the existence of SatanAgain, I don't disagree that the King of Tyre prolly thought he was a god, but this is also the major characteristic of both Satan and the Son of Perdition - Dan 8:11, Isa 14:14



The thing I found that most strongly argues against Satan being depicted in Ezekiel 28 are verses 28:15-16.

This is God speaking here.

He states that the king of Tyre (whom He had just called a "guardian cherub" in the verse before) had been found with "wickedness." From this, God transitions into talking about trade. God then states that it was "widespread trade" that was the source of the king of Tyre's violence, and as a direct result, causes the king of Tyre to sin. "So" God drove the "guardian cherub" king of Tyre from the mount of God, from among the fiery stones. The "so" directly links the "guardian cherub's" wickedness to the violence and sin that was caused by the "widespread trade."

How does this reflect a heavenly being such as Satan in any way? It just doesn't... but it perfectly fits the king of Tyre, if one is willing to admit not just the possibility, but the probability that the "guardian cherub" passage is used as metaphoric for the king of Tyre's life.I have to admit, the "widespread trade" part seems to be over-emphasized, and if this indeed is a description of Satan it kinda throws me a little. But everything else seems to fit pretty perfectly, so I'm pretty much persuaded personally.

I am a little curious as to why you'd protest so much about this? Is it simply that you don't believe that Satan was created a Cherub?

VerticalReality
Aug 29th 2008, 12:13 PM
I do agree with you, matthew, that Christians today give the enemy entirely too much credit, and they make him out to be some sort of super powerful force that is just a notch below God.

I don't see any Scriptural support for that whatsoever. In fact, I think it very telling that the Word of God declares that the only power that Satan has had or ever will have till the end is deception. He has to trick people into serving him. This isn't the mark of a super powerful being. He's just a liar.

markedward
Aug 29th 2008, 01:36 PM
Eze 28:2-11 is a prophecy against the "prince" of tyre, which I don't disagree is a man, or a "son" [of perdition] LOL

Eze 28:12-19 is a prophecy against the "king" of tyre, which I believe is SatanThe Hebrew word translated as "prince" literally means "ruler." There is no discernable difference between the "ruler of Tyre" and the "king of Tyre." Simply stating they are different individuals because of the change from the word "ruler" to "king" is a pretty flawed argument; it would be like trying to say the "chief of staff" and the "president" are different people. So simply because Ezekiel uses "ruler" in one point and "king" in another is not even close to sufficient for saying Satan is being viewed here.

Comparing to other Scripture, the word you have translated as "prince" simply doesn't denote a lower status of power than "king." Just look at 1 Kings 1. In that whole chapter, King David is appointing Solomon to be the new king. He repeatedly calls him "ruler" (the word you take as "prince"), but he is calling Solomon this in as the new king.

"Then ye shall come up after him, that he may come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah."

The word "ruler" here is the same Hebrew word for "prince" in Ezekiel. Yet David is using the word "ruler" here to refer to the status of king. Again, there is no real difference in status or power between the "ruler" and the "king". They're simply two words being used for the same position. Hence, there is no justifiable grounds for claiming the "ruler of Tyre" and the "king of Tyre" are two different individuals.


ex. Poor Jonas spent 3 days in the belly of the fish, but this turned out to be a prophetical representation of Christ's time in the tomb....Well, for one, Jonah wasn't actually Jesus. You're saying that the king of Tyre is Satan.


Again, I don't disagree that the King of Tyre prolly thought he was a god, but this is also the major characteristic of both Satan and the Son of Perdition - Dan 8:11, Isa 14:14Isaiah 14:14 is about the king of Babylon, which the passage explicitly emphasizes the humanity of. Not Satan. Daniel 8:11 specifically shows us that the "stern-faced king" is a man, because he came out from within already established kingdoms. In neither of these cases is Satan being seen.


I have to admit, the "widespread trade" part seems to be over-emphasized, and if this indeed is a description of Satan it kinda throws me a little. But everything else seems to fit pretty perfectly, so I'm pretty much persuaded personally.The whole passage emphasizes that the ruler/king of Tyre was filled with wickedness because of the pride he developed from his trade and wisdom. God Himself says the cherub was filled with wickedness on account of his "widespread trade."

The emphasis is on the corruption via this "trade" throughout the whole passage, so again I ask - Where in Scripture is it supported that Satan's wickedness was a direct result of his "widespread trade"?

It simply isn't, which weighs the passage heavily in the favor of the ruler/king of Tyre being only a man, and no view of Satan being found.


I am a little curious as to why you'd protest so much about this? Is it simply that you don't believe that Satan was created a Cherub?No, it is not "simply" that. It is because I think a large number of OT verses are incredibly misapplied, this being one of them. When one really digs into the text here, the argument against Satan. This thread is about understanding Satan, so I saw Ezekiel 28 being applied to him, I jumped in. My premise was, The only way we can understand Satan is if we really dig into the Scripture about him, which requires weeding out the Scriptures that aren't about him first.

The only valid argument that can be made for Satan being found in Ezekiel 28 is "The king of Tyre wasn't a cherub or in Eden," which itself is easily put down by pointing out that the cherub (a) was filled with wickedness from trade, and (b) can be taken as hyperbolic metaphor for the exalted status of the human king of Tyre.

So if Ezekiel 28 has very little grounds to be used to describe Satan, then it shouldn't be included in the gathering of Scripture that we use to try to understand him.

divaD
Aug 29th 2008, 01:51 PM
In order to even begin to understand what and when caused satan to sin, we need to determine what the tree of knowledge of good and evil was/is. This was in the garden before man fell. And since there was already knowledge of evil present, where did this evil come from? Did it originate from satan in eternity past? If so, where does it state this?

I tend to want to believe that satan went bad in and at the same time man fell, that being in the garden of Eden, yet I can't reconcile this to the fact that evil was already present before this occured.

Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Now compare this to this:

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


To me it's fairly obvious that the Lord God did not cause the tree of knowledge of good and evil to grow out of the ground, because this tree causes death, thus it would not be good for food. When we look in Rev 21, we see that God's paradise is back on earth. We also see that the tree of life is in the midst. What we don't see is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

RogerW
Aug 29th 2008, 02:48 PM
In order to even begin to understand what and when caused satan to sin, we need to determine what the tree of knowledge of good and evil was/is. This was in the garden before man fell. And since there was already knowledge of evil present, where did this evil come from? Did it originate from satan in eternity past? If so, where does it state this?

I tend to want to believe that satan went bad in and at the same time man fell, that being in the garden of Eden, yet I can't reconcile this to the fact that evil was already present before this occured.

Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Now compare this to this:

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


To me it's fairly obvious that the Lord God did not cause the tree of knowledge of good and evil to grow out of the ground, because this tree causes death, thus it would not be good for food. When we look in Rev 21, we see that God's paradise is back on earth. We also see that the tree of life is in the midst. What we don't see is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Greetings Diva,

I have a theory about the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Could those who would be saved understand the great love, and mercy that God bestows on His children without understanding evil? Could we really love God, as He loves us if we never know what we have been saved from?

It is my opinion that God placed the tree in the garden, then allowed the tempter (Satan) to deceive Eve, so that humanity could truly know the love of God. And God did this not only for His children's benefit, but for His glory. It's in expressing our love toward Him and others that His glory shines like a light unto the fallen world.

Many Blessings,
RW

Mograce2U
Aug 29th 2008, 03:24 PM
matthew94, #87 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1767721&postcount=87)

This is a perfect example of what I am arguing against. Note how HIGH a view of Satan this poster has. He believes that satan was the worship leader of heaven. This has absolutely ZERO scriptural grounds. It's based entirely on Ezekiel 28:13, but A) that passage isn't even about satan and B) even if it were, it doesn't say he was a worship leader and C) the kjv which makes people make that error isn't even a good translation on that particular verse. The poster has such a high view of satan, in fact, that he makes satan out to be the 2nd greatest being in the universe!

If I were to hold to the traditional view, I'd be much more inclined to agree with Augustine who believed that satan was the DUMBEST of all the angels. Certainly not the greatest. Augustine said only one of the lowest and least intelligent angels could have been so stupid as to rebel against God.The king of Tyre is being compared to a spiritual entity in Ezekiel. The beast and the dragon behind him is not a unique idea to Revelation - their natures are shown to be the same as are their destinies.

I did not say that Satan was the 2nd greatest being in the universe - but among the angels, he saw himself as "the best". Which put, in his mind, only God above him. This is whose position he coveted which led him to rebel. Satan's inability to see himself rightly as one of God's creatures, causes his blindness - and stupidity - to think he can actually win out over the One to whom he owes his existence. His own awareness of himself as a sentient being is what does this to him. The idea one can be as God could only have originated in one who was able to experience His full glory firsthand.

He brings this idea into the Garden and corrupts man with it. If you notice Adam under the guidance of God did not have any rebellious thoughts of his own beforehand. Because being made in the image of God, he shared His mind and a proper awareness of his own position before Him. When we are in our glorified state and sin is no longer present and God alone is once again guiding us, we will be like the angels who never fell either, but only desire to do His will. Since in God there is no variableness or shadow of turning, we will only be led in righteousness.

If sin could have originated in man without such outside influence, then sin could also exist in glory. It has to be one or the other - here there is a devil and sin in man, but in Christ and in glory there is none.

Mograce2U
Aug 29th 2008, 03:41 PM
markedward, #90 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1767905&postcount=90)

The only valid argument that can be made for Satan being found in Ezekiel 28 is "The king of Tyre wasn't a cherub or in Eden," which itself is easily put down by pointing out that the cherub (a) was filled with wickedness from trade, and (b) can be taken as hyperbolic metaphor for the exalted status of the human king of Tyre.
And yet a metaphor would be empty unless the type exists. The king of Tyre is being compared to Satan because he is like him. They are of the same spirit. Did not Satan have the rule in the kingdoms of men? (Mat 4:8-9)

God uses Satan to move men into certain acts by their sin. This brings in an opportunity for God to do a work for His glory according to His timing. It is how He brought the cross about. The children of the devil serve God's purposes and sin is not a deterrent for Him.

divaD
Aug 29th 2008, 04:09 PM
It is my opinion that God placed the tree in the garden, then allowed the tempter (Satan) to deceive Eve, so that humanity
could truly know the love of God. And God did this not only for His children's benefit, but for His glory. It's in expressing our
love toward Him and others that His glory shines like a light unto the fallen world.


Hi RW. The main issue I have with that is this.

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


If the the LORD God allowed the serpent to do this, and even wanted him to do this, then why punish him for it?


As far as Ezekiel 28 is concerned, there is a hermeneutic principle sometimes referred to as the principle of double fulfillment or double reference. Perhaps Ezekiel 28 might be a perfect example of this?

RogerW
Aug 29th 2008, 05:19 PM
Hi RW. The main issue I have with that is this.

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

If the the LORD God allowed the serpent to do this, and even wanted him to do this, then why punish him for it?

As far as Ezekiel 28 is concerned, there is a hermeneutic principle sometimes referred to as the principle of double fulfillment or double reference. Perhaps Ezekiel 28 might be a perfect example of this?

The Covenant of Redemption through the sacrifice of Christ was not plan B because plan A failed. Christ is the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. Yes, Satan is cursed for causing deception, but God is NOT the cause of Satan deceiving Eve. But, God knew Satan would deceive, and He also knew both Adam and Eve would fall. If God did not know all this, then why have an answer for the sin problem (slain Lamb) before any sin existed?

So God creates a spirit being, Satan, knowing he has the ability to test and even torment humanity. Satan was not a good angel who fell, he has always been the deceiver from the beginning. God uses Satan, with his evil, wicked nature to display God's glory. It's hard, I know for many to accept that it has always been God's plan to use sin and evil to accomplish His purposes, but I believe that is exactly what God does.

Why is Satan condemned, when he apparently did exactly what God knew he would do? Because he is the epitome of evil and wickedness. Still God's glory is displayed through this evil villian (consider how God used Pharoah). Nonetheless all evil and wickedness will be utterly destroyed through the sacrifice of Christ.

Since Christ is the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world, all of this was foreknown in heaven when God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit enacted the Covenant of Redemption in heaven before creation. Christ MUST be the Lamb slain, therefore evil and wickedness must exist, otherwise it makes no sense to have the sacrifice for sin if no sin exists.

Many Blessings,
RW

legoman
Aug 29th 2008, 05:58 PM
The Covenant of Redemption through the sacrifice of Christ was not plan B because plan A failed. Christ is the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. Yes, Satan is cursed for causing deception, but God is NOT the cause of Satan deceiving Eve. But, God knew Satan would deceive, and He also knew both Adam and Eve would fall. If God did not know all this, then why have an answer for the sin problem (slain Lamb) before any sin existed?

So God creates a spirit being, Satan, knowing he has the ability to test and even torment humanity. Satan was not a good angel who fell, he has always been the deceiver from the beginning. God uses Satan, with his evil, wicked nature to display God's glory. It's hard, I know for many to accept that it has always been God's plan to use sin and evil to accomplish His purposes, but I believe that is exactly what God does.

Why is Satan condemned, when he apparently did exactly what God knew he would do? Because he is the epitome of evil and wickedness. Still God's glory is displayed through this evil villian (consider how God used Pharoah). Nonetheless all evil and wickedness will be utterly destroyed through the sacrifice of Christ.

Since Christ is the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world, all of this was foreknown in heaven when God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit enacted the Covenant of Redemption in heaven before creation. Christ MUST be the Lamb slain, therefore evil and wickedness must exist, otherwise it makes no sense to have the sacrifice for sin if no sin exists.

Many Blessings,
RW

Hi Roger,

I tend to agree with you, but I think you are not following it through to its logical conclusion. You are close though.

I definitely agree with you that Christ was not plan B. God doesn't need plan B because he planned everything from the beginning, and his plan is not going to change. Scripture shows this.

I definitely agree with you that God created Satan. God created him with the ability to test & torment, as you said. God knew he would deceive Adam & Eve. God uses Satan for his ultimate plan. Scripture shows this too.

I definitely agree with you that God knew all this would happen. Otherwise he wouldn't be God! Scripture also shows this.

We (and the scriptures) agree on all of this. But then you say "God is NOT the cause of Satan deceiving Eve". Huh? You say God created Satan with the ability to test and torment (which includes deceiving), and God knew what Satan would do. Wouldn't you agree that God intended Satan to deceive? Wouldn't you agree that God intended Satan to decieve Adam & Eve specifically? It must be true. That sure sounds like God is in control, and he caused Satan to do what he did. Maybe he didn't physically make Satan do it (or maybe he did, I don't know how God works exactly), but God certainly designed Satan for that purpose! Satan could do nothing else cause he was designed that way.

Lets look at the big picture.

God wants a family. He wants children. But he wants his children to be good. He wants his children to be like himself. How does someone become good? By going through lots of adversity and tribulation. Trial by fire if you will. This builds character. Each trial refines that character, burning away impurities until only the gold & silver is left! Eventually we will be made good.

Just an aside, this could be described as the greatest story ever created. All great storys have heros and villians, adversity, struggles, and triumph. Basically, they have Problems & Solutions.

So how does God accomplish this? God creates Satan (the "Problem") to send forth tribulation and trials into the world. People will experience sin & evil, go through tribulation - their character is developed and tested.

Now God is responsible for his creation, so he also plans a Solution (Jesus) to the Problem (Satan) he created. Jesus will save people from their sin and from Satan! Praise God that he is responsible and in control of everything. It is all part of his plan!

Cheers,
Legoman

divaD
Aug 29th 2008, 06:32 PM
Hi Roger,

I tend to agree with you, but I think you are not following it through to its logical conclusion. You are close though.

I definitely agree with you that Christ was not plan B. God doesn't need plan B because he planned everything from the beginning, and his plan is not going to change. Scripture shows this.

I definitely agree with you that God created Satan. God created him with the ability to test & torment, as you said. God knew he would deceive Adam & Eve. God uses Satan for his ultimate plan. Scripture shows this too.

I definitely agree with you that God knew all this would happen. Otherwise he wouldn't be God! Scripture also shows this.

We (and the scriptures) agree on all of this. But then you say "God is NOT the cause of Satan deceiving Eve". Huh? You say God created Satan with the ability to test and torment (which includes deceiving), and God knew what Satan would do. Wouldn't you agree that God intended Satan to deceive? Wouldn't you agree that God intended Satan to decieve Adam & Eve specifically? It must be true. That sure sounds like God is in control, and he caused Satan to do what he did. Maybe he didn't physically make Satan do it (or maybe he did, I don't know how God works exactly), but God certainly designed Satan for that purpose! Satan could do nothing else cause he was designed that way.

Lets look at the big picture.

God wants a family. He wants children. But he wants his children to be good. He wants his children to be like himself. How does someone become good? By going through lots of adversity and tribulation. Trial by fire if you will. This builds character. Each trial refines that character, burning away impurities until only the gold & silver is left! Eventually we will be made good.

Just an aside, this could be described as the greatest story ever created. All great storys have heros and villians, adversity, struggles, and triumph. Basically, they have Problems & Solutions.

So how does God accomplish this? God creates Satan (the "Problem") to send forth tribulation and trials into the world. People will experience sin & evil, go through tribulation - their character is developed and tested.

Now God is responsible for his creation, so he also plans a Solution (Jesus) to the Problem (Satan) he created. Jesus will save people from their sin and from Satan! Praise God that he is responsible and in control of everything. It is all part of his plan!

Cheers,
Legoman




legoman, I can pretty much see where you're coming from, and I can somewhat agree with you on some points. Like for instance, how can one know what is good, if one doesn't know what is bad. I can see the logic in that from God's perspective.

What I can't see the logic in is this. If God created satan for the sole purpose of being evil, then why punish him for what he was designed by God to do in the first place?

The Bible says that the devil was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. So when was that beginning? It had to have been when God put man on the earth. That's the only thing that squares with Scripture. That clearly says that satan caused all of this mess, not God.

While your above points may have some merit after sin was injected into mankind thru the serpent, you need to keep in mind that both Adam and Eve were innocent of any wrong doing until the serpent lied and deceived the woman.

RogerW
Aug 29th 2008, 06:52 PM
Hi Roger,

I tend to agree with you, but I think you are not following it through to its logical conclusion. You are close though.

I definitely agree with you that Christ was not plan B. God doesn't need plan B because he planned everything from the beginning, and his plan is not going to change. Scripture shows this.

I definitely agree with you that God created Satan. God created him with the ability to test & torment, as you said. God knew he would deceive Adam & Eve. God uses Satan for his ultimate plan. Scripture shows this too.

I definitely agree with you that God knew all this would happen. Otherwise he wouldn't be God! Scripture also shows this.

We (and the scriptures) agree on all of this. But then you say "God is NOT the cause of Satan deceiving Eve". Huh? You say God created Satan with the ability to test and torment (which includes deceiving), and God knew what Satan would do. Wouldn't you agree that God intended Satan to deceive? Wouldn't you agree that God intended Satan to decieve Adam & Eve specifically? It must be true. That sure sounds like God is in control, and he caused Satan to do what he did. Maybe he didn't physically make Satan do it (or maybe he did, I don't know how God works exactly), but God certainly designed Satan for that purpose! Satan could do nothing else cause he was designed that way.

Lets look at the big picture.

God wants a family. He wants children. But he wants his children to be good. He wants his children to be like himself. How does someone become good? By going through lots of adversity and tribulation. Trial by fire if you will. This builds character. Each trial refines that character, burning away impurities until only the gold & silver is left! Eventually we will be made good.

Just an aside, this could be described as the greatest story ever created. All great storys have heros and villians, adversity, struggles, and triumph. Basically, they have Problems & Solutions.

So how does God accomplish this? God creates Satan (the "Problem") to send forth tribulation and trials into the world. People will experience sin & evil, go through tribulation - their character is developed and tested.

Now God is responsible for his creation, so he also plans a Solution (Jesus) to the Problem (Satan) he created. Jesus will save people from their sin and from Satan! Praise God that he is responsible and in control of everything. It is all part of his plan!

Cheers,
Legoman

Greetings Legoman,

The problem I find in this is that it seems to make God the author of sin. But God says that no man is tempted of God, neither tempteth He any man. So while I agree that God created Satan, I cannot find biblical support that God created him to sin.

Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Jas 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

I think the answer may be found in Ro 9 with the truth that some are created for destruction. It is not that God is the cause of anyone sinning, but that He does not change their hearts of stone, and grant them eternal life. Like Satan, man sins because he loves sin, and hates God prior to salvation. Obviously Satan hated God from the beginning, and set about to wreck havoc on God glorious creation from the start. Why? It's probably best to simply take to heart the words of Paul:

Ro 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Ro 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Ro 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Blessings,
RW

legoman
Aug 29th 2008, 07:06 PM
Hi divaD,


legoman, I can pretty much see where you're coming from, and I can somewhat agree with you on some points. Like for instance, how can one know what is good, if one doesn't know what is bad. I can see the logic in that from God's perspective.



I'm glad you can see my reasoning on this. For me its the only way that truly makes sense, given that God is ALL-KNOWING. Sometimes I wonder if people really believe that God is All-knowing. Like, "God is all-knowing, except for all that bad stuff. Satan does all that by himself." For me that doesn't cut it, because that makes Satan almost equal to God. Clearly that is false.



What I can't see the logic in is this. If God created satan for the sole purpose of being evil, then why punish him for what he was designed by God to do in the first place?
I admit this does seem like an inconsistency. But we have to remember a couple points: all scripture is true, and scripture never contradicts itself. I think I've made a scriptural argument that God designed Satan to sin. I've provided plain, easy to read scripture that says so. If you can provide additional scriptural arguments one way or the other, please do. (Eze 28 and Isa 14 not withstanding - I don't think they are talking about Satan, but some people do, so you will have to decide for yourself).

So anyway, from my understanding of the scripture, it is true that God created Satan to Sin. Now we (maybe just me? LOL) have a problem, how do we reconcile that with some other scripture in Revelations that says Satan is thrown into the Lake of Fire. Because we know that scripture must be true too (all scripture is true). So we just need to somehow resolve this apparent contradiction. Maybe God doesn't need Satan anymore so he just discards him. Or maybe this verse is not meaning what we think it means.

To be honest, I am still studying that area, and don't think I could give an answer right now. But it definitely has something to do with what the lake of fire is. We know the lake of fire is not hell (hades), cause hell (hades) is thrown into it. So what is it? That is the question. Sorry I can't say much more yet.



The Bible says that the devil was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. So when was that beginning? It had to have been when God put man on the earth. That's the only thing that squares with Scripture. That clearly says that satan caused all of this mess, not God.

While your above points may have some merit after sin was injected into mankind thru the serpent, you need to keep in mind that both Adam and Eve were innocent of any wrong doing until the serpent lied and deceived the woman.I read that to mean the devil was a liar since he was created. I'm not sure when that was exactly, but yes it was probably when God created everything else. Depends if you think Satan was a literal serpent or not perhaps.

RE: Adam & Eve, I don't necessarily think they were innocent. Aren't all men born/created with the sinful nature? I use the same reasoning as I do with why God created the devil.

God created man (including Adam & Eve) with the sinful nature, because God planned it that way. He intended us to sin. If Adam & Eve were innocent/sinless/perfect, why didn't they easily resist the serpent? Do you think it was ever a possibility that Adam & Eve wouldn't sin, and then we would all be living happily in the Garden of Eden? It wasn't God's plan, that's for sure.

But either way, does it matter much exactly when Satan was created?

The overriding rule we must apply is God is ALL-KNOWING! I would hope most Christians would believe that God is all-knowing. If he is all-knowing, he knows his plan will work from the beginning.

legoman
Aug 29th 2008, 07:27 PM
Greetings Legoman,

The problem I find in this is that it seems to make God the author of sin. But God says that no man is tempted of God, neither tempteth He any man. So while I agree that God created Satan, I cannot find biblical support that God created him to sin.

Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Jas 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

I think the answer may be found in Ro 9 with the truth that some are created for destruction. It is not that God is the cause of anyone sinning, but that He does not change their hearts of stone, and grant them eternal life. Like Satan, man sins because he loves sin, and hates God prior to salvation. Obviously Satan hated God from the beginning, and set about to wreck havoc on God glorious creation from the start. Why? It's probably best to simply take to heart the words of Paul:

Ro 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Ro 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Ro 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Blessings,
RW

I like the Romans 9 verses you quoted. They show that God forms us according to his purpose, whether for good or bad.

This is almost getting into the definition of sin.

I think its a very fine line. The whole "causing sin vs. doing sin" thing. This can be resolved by saying God causes Satan to sin, but Satan is the one that actually does it. Satan is the sinner, not God. God designed Satan to sin. Thats how he causes him to sin. Then Satan goes about doing what he was designed to do. He was designed to sin, therefore he sins.

Did God create Satan to sin... this seems obvious to me (YES - Isaiah 54:16). So then the question is: Did God sin because he created something that could sin? I would say NO.

Why not?

The short answer is God doesn't sin (but he creates beings that sin).

The longer answer has to do with what the definition of sin is. Missing the mark, making a mistake. That's sin. So God designed Satan, us, all of creation, all with a purpose. Did the creation miss the mark? Is it not doing what it was designed to do? Is the creation malfunctioning? No, no and NO! The creation is functioning exactly as designed. That includes you, me and Satan. We all play our roles. They are all part of God's plan.

For the really long answer read the whole bible in the original manuscripts :)

Anyway, that is how I resolve the apparent contradiction that you raised Roger.

Peace.

markedward
Aug 29th 2008, 07:38 PM
And yet a metaphor would be empty unless the type exists. The king of Tyre is being compared to Satan because he is like him. They are of the same spirit. Did not Satan have the rule in the kingdoms of men? (Mat 4:8-9) The metaphor isn't "empty" just because Satan may not be found in it. Cherub are real. Eden was real. It was the highly elevated status of the cherub and the highly elevated status of Eden that the king of Tyre was being compared to. As it goes, "Oh what heights you have fallen from!" The metaphor isn't "empty" if we know what cherubs are (Ezekiel 1) and we know what Eden was (Genesis 2). There is no necessity to identify the cherub with an actual cherub if it is the essence of the cherub that is being used in the metaphor: since people know what a cherub is and people know what Eden was, then people would recognize that calling the king of Tyre a cherub in Eden and then saying that the cherub had lost its greatness and glory to sin fits exactly within the hyperbolic nature found in a good deal of prophecy and poetry of the ancient Jewish culture.

The king of Tyre was not being compared to Satan. He was being compared to a cherub having fallen. If this is metaphor, then it does not necessitate that there have been any cherubim who had actually fallen, let alone that this cherub is actually Satan.

divaD
Aug 30th 2008, 03:24 AM
But either way, does it matter much exactly when Satan was created?


John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.


Yes, legoman, I think it does matter in relation to the above verse. It's all about truth isn't it? Isn't that what's important?

If one believes that satan was created in the condition we see illustrated in the above verse, then that one has to believe that satan was created around the same time man was. If one wants to believe that satan was created in the condition we see illustrated in the above verse, yet believes satan was created perhaps eons before man was created, then there's a problem. This latter view can't be squared with Scriptures, because it states that satan was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. Whom would he have lied to or murdered from the beginning if he had been created in eternity past, even before God created the earth and man?

humbled
Aug 30th 2008, 04:34 AM
I haven't read this thread all the way thru, so this question may have been raised.

Does anyone think God knew satan would sin? Does anyone think God took this into consideration when creating him?

Could sin, while evil, serve an ultimately good purpose we cannot comprehend? (not to condone or justify sin, of course)

crush
Aug 30th 2008, 05:05 AM
Markedward,

I think that MoGrace2U Made the point about the prophecies against the King and Prince of Tyre very well. And there isn't really much more to add...

The king of Tyre is being compared to a spiritual entity in Ezekiel. The beast and the dragon behind him is not a unique idea to Revelation - their natures are shown to be the same as are their destinies.The word "prince" as you point out can just mean "ruler" but it can also mean "the son of a king", or "governor" or many other similar things. The fact that there are 2 Separate prophecies given here should be evidence enough to lead one to believe that "prince" and "king" in this context aren't interchangeable as they are in the example you give about Solomon. More clues can be discerned by noting that the first prophecy given is definately against a Man (as you point out) while the second prophecy is against a spiritual being. As Mograce2U says, one lump[man] contains 2 vessels [spiritual and physical bodies]. It will also be this way for the beast/dragon, and is a recurring theme in end-time prophecy.


An observation about this verse in John. The word "murderer" is literally translated "human killer" or "man killer" here, so this leads me to believe that regardless of when Satan was created, the actually "sinning" began with his interaction with Mankind [in the Garden]. Because you can't murder humans before there are any humans created obviously.


John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.I think another implication of this verse ("when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own") is that he isn't "following orders" from God to "sin", but he is sinning for his own personal reasons.

There is an interesting event that happens in 1Kings that may be relevent, when a heavenly(?) spirit volunteers to be a "lying spirit" in the mouths of the prophets to Ahab (through possession I assume) I think that the point I come away from this example is, that if God needs a task done that is contrary to his nature, he doesn't necessarily need Satan to do it for him, he prolly has plenty of volunteers LOL. And, anyway, if he asked Satan to do something like this for him, he'd prolly do the opposite anyway - which ironically makes him useful and predictable.


1Ki 22:21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
1Ki 22:22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
1Ki 22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

legoman
Aug 31st 2008, 03:10 AM
I haven't read this thread all the way thru, so this question may have been raised.

Does anyone think God knew satan would sin? Does anyone think God took this into consideration when creating him?

Could sin, while evil, serve an ultimately good purpose we cannot comprehend? (not to condone or justify sin, of course)

YES, sortof yes, and YES :) Perhaps you should read the whole thread...

Lets look at your questions in detail for a second.

1. Did God know Satan would sin? Well God is all-knowing with complete foreknowledge, so that would be a big YES. Everyone must agree with this or they are denying basic scripture.

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

2. Did God take this into consideration? This is one of those backwards questions that tricks you into thinking the wrong way. Why would God need to take this into consideration? He's the one that created Satan! Did God make a mistake when he made Satan? Did God know that Satan would sin and create him anyway on the off chance he was wrong? Did God think, hm let me create Satan, oh wait, I know he's going to turn out evil, hm, let me consider that for a second, ah why not I'll create him anyway and deal with him later? The problem with all of these ideas is it turns God into a less than all-knowing being that second guesses what he does and has to change his own plans to deal with the thing he created.

God didn't have to take anything into consideration, cause that was God's intention from the start.

3. Could sin serve ultimately serve a good purpose? YES. Sin and evil is required so that good can triumph.

Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,[j (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%208&version=31#fen-NIV-28130j)] who[k (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%208&version=31#fen-NIV-28130k)] have been called according to his purpose.

What does all mean? It means everything. God uses everything for the good of those who love him. Sin, evil, the weather, you name it, God uses it.

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.

God made all things; it is all for his glory. That includes the good, the bad, evil, satan, you, me, Jesus, the air, your car, my backyard, the whole earth, every atom in the universe, all things.

legoman
Aug 31st 2008, 03:27 AM
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.


Yes, legoman, I think it does matter in relation to the above verse. It's all about truth isn't it? Isn't that what's important?

If one believes that satan was created in the condition we see illustrated in the above verse, then that one has to believe that satan was created around the same time man was. If one wants to believe that satan was created in the condition we see illustrated in the above verse, yet believes satan was created perhaps eons before man was created, then there's a problem. This latter view can't be squared with Scriptures, because it states that satan was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. Whom would he have lied to or murdered from the beginning if he had been created in eternity past, even before God created the earth and man?

The verse can make sense whether he was created the same week as adam or eon's before.

"He was a murderer and a liar from the beginning."

We need to be careful to not use "extreme" literalism. If Satan was created the exact minute he tempted eve, then we can say he was a liar from the beginning. However, if Satan was created an hour or a day before he tempted Eve, is it still not fair to say he was a liar from the beginning? How about if Satan was created an eon before? Would it still not apply, if that was his purpose?

It is possible to be a murderer and a liar without physically carrying out those deeds. How? If we hate someone in our heart, God says we have murdered them. Sin comes from the heart, even before we commit the sin.

However I think it is all a moot point, because we are told God created satan (the serpent) along with the rest of creation in Genesis 3:1

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made."

Doesn't this show God created the serpent along with the rest of creation?

Legoman

divaD
Aug 31st 2008, 01:43 PM
We need to be careful to not use "extreme" literalism. If Satan was created the exact minute he tempted eve, then we can say
he was a liar from the beginning. However, if Satan was created an hour or a day before he tempted Eve, is it still not fair to
say he was a liar from the beginning? How about if Satan was created an eon before? Would it still not apply, if that was his
purpose?


legoman, even tho I see your point, you are clearly wrong in this regard. And as far as using extreme literalism, that just isn't me. One has to use Scripture against Scripture in order to even begin to deduce the truths contained. Read John 8:44 again. It's pretty cut and dried, that from the text, satan chose to be a murderer. that satan knew the truth, yet he chose to not abode in that truth, thus making him the father of lies.

How can you ignore what this plainly states "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own"? This is not God's doings, this is satan's doings. Just like if I were to go out and punch someone in the face for whatever reasons, this is not God's doings, this is my doings. Does that mean that God made me like that and that's what I'm supposed to be doing?

Keep in mind, we are in the endtimes and time is running short. satan would like nothing more than having the blame taken off of him, thus blaming God for it all. That's what I see happening more and more all the time. In Genesis satan started out as a serpent, by the time we get to Revelation, he has become a great red dragon. Did he start out as a great red dragon? I don't believe so, but he did morph into this over the course of history known as mankind.

legoman
Aug 31st 2008, 05:58 PM
legoman, even tho I see your point, you are clearly wrong in this regard. And as far as using extreme literalism, that just isn't me. One has to use Scripture against Scripture in order to even begin to deduce the truths contained. Read John 8:44 again. It's pretty cut and dried, that from the text, satan chose to be a murderer. that satan knew the truth, yet he chose to not abode in that truth, thus making him the father of lies.


I must apologize Diva, now I see your point. I think it was a bit too late last night when I was replying... I thought you were taking the 1st half of the verse "too literally" but now I see that wasn't your point.

However I don't think I am clearly wrong as you state. We need to consider the fact that God created Satan.



How can you ignore what this plainly states "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own"? This is not God's doings, this is satan's doings. Just like if I were to go out and punch someone in the face for whatever reasons, this is not God's doings, this is my doings. Does that mean that God made me like that and that's what I'm supposed to be doing?
Unforutantely my default version on biblegateway is set to NIV (I should change that sometime). Here's what the verse says in the NIV:

"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

You can see it doesn't say he "speaks on his own" in this version, which is why I missed your point. Now granted the NIV is maybe not the best translation, but it does give an alternative interpretation. Basically lying is native to Satan. That's his nature. I think this supports the "Satan was designed to lie" position.

Versions other that the NIV are similar to the way you quoted. But it can be explained this way. God created Satan. He created Satan with a purpose. That purpose was for Satan to lie & deceive. Therefore Satan lies. He is the one that lies. God designed Satan that way. Does that make God a liar? No. God does not lie. Same thing with humans. God makes humans. Humans sin. Does that make God a sinner? No. I think you still believe in free will Diva, so that is probably a huge stumbling block.

There is another important meaning of this verse which I think should clinch it. "He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him." He abode not in the truth. It doesn't say he was in the truth at the beginning and then fell out of the truth. He never had the truth to begin with. He was created that way!

This gets back into the whole original argument which we have been over - did God create Satan knowing he would become evil, even though that was never God's intention? This position makes God appear weak, because he now has to deal with something he didn't intend (side question: could something happen that God never intended?).

Or did God create Satan, fully intending that Satan would be evil from the start? If yes, then this position is consistent with an all-powerful, all-knowing God who is in complete control.

Logically, I have to go with the second position, that God is in full control of everything. It makes sense logically, and the scriptures support this as well.



Keep in mind, we are in the endtimes and time is running short. satan would like nothing more than having the blame taken off of him, thus blaming God for it all. That's what I see happening more and more all the time. In Genesis satan started out as a serpent, by the time we get to Revelation, he has become a great red dragon. Did he start out as a great red dragon? I don't believe so, but he did morph into this over the course of history known as mankind.I'm fairly certain that "serpent" and "dragon" mean roughly the same thing. In Revelation he is referred to as the "great dragon, that old serpent, called the devil, and satan".

Its not really about blame here. Satan is the one messing up this world, no doubt about it. He is even referred to as the "god of this world". But he is not the true God (of course). He is made out to be far more powerful than he actually is.