Error in Theology

[InfernalFather]

According to theology, Satan fell from God's grace. This contradicts what Jesus has said, He was a liar and murderer from the beginning.

All of this would suggest that the devil was never in God's grace, right? I mean how could Satan be in Gods' grace if he was a liar and murderer from the beginning? Can I be in grace if I am a liar and murderer? No? I didn't think so.

You see, theologians just made a presumption that somehow Satan fell from God's grace and that is why he is evil; however, there is no evidence within scripture that suggests that this fall did occur.

They even go as far to suggest that Satan fell in the state of Lucifer; but according to the truth about scripture, the word lucifer was never mentioned in the original text of the bible. The only time that it is found is in Isaiah; but the word lucifer was merely a translation of an oppressive Babylonian king's name.

And that is the truth.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

So how do you propose this theological error be fixed?

What viewpoints would you say are valid in light of this?

 

[NavyGuy7]

This contradicts what Jesus has said, He was a liar and murderer from the beginning.

I honestly don't think there is a contradiction. What Jesus meant was that Lucifer would become one. Because he had the potential, means, in theory, that he was a liar and murderer from the beginning. He had the ability, the potential, and acted upon it.

Plus, anyone can cherry-pick. I just did it in the above statements. So why not post the WHOLE verse, or even tell us where it CAN be found? Then maybe you will have a basis for an fair argument here.

And i get the feeling I inspired this thread. It's just too much of a coincidence that we were talking about Lucifer's fall in your "serious question" thread, and this appears shortly afterwards. I'm not so sure I feel good about it. But it's human nature to explore all options.

 

[Blackguard_]

Because he had the potential, means, in theory, that he was a liar and murderer from the beginning.

So Adam and Eve were sinners from the beginning too?

The only time that it is found is in Isaiah; but the word lucifer was merely a translation of an oppressive Babylonian king's name.

Not quite. It;s a "translation" of a reference to the morning star, Venus, that the Romans called Lucifer 'light bearer". Jesus even refers to himself as "Lucifer" ( i.e. "the bright and morning star") in Revelations 22.

You're right the passage is taken to be a symbolic reference to a Babylonian king ttough.

however, there is no evidence within scripture that suggests that this fall did occur.

There is, but it's a matter of interpretation what that evidence prooves. In addition to the Isiah passage you mention, some also interpret Ezekial 28 to be about Satan.

But you're right, the idea the Devil is a fallen angel is not supported by the Bible.

 

[NavyGuy7]

Then what is he? really? He is definitely not God, that's for certain.

And as far as Adam and Eve go.... ultimately, one could say so. Sure, they were innocent when created, but they did have the potential to disobey, given their free will. And at that moment we were cursed with the burden of sin.

However, I disagree that Jesus really refers to himself as Lucifer. That's reaching, if I ever heard of it. You can't prove that what he means by morning star is this same star referred to as "Lucifer". Not decisively. At this point, everything we have said is just that, mere speculation.

So I ask again, if Satan was not an angel before his fall, and he is not God, then what is he? He existed before the world and humans were created, so he can't be anything like in this world. Logically, I have deduced he must have been an angel, based on what I know. Yet it is a mere speculation... perhaps I will have to explore this more, to see if there IS conclusive proof. At least I'll have something to do while I wait to be shipped off to boot camp.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

Samael the poison of God, created to do Gods bidding?

 

[DailyBlessings]

When Satan first entered the theological lexicon, it was as the "accuser" of humanity, a member of God's own court. Just because Satan lies, cheats, and steals -rebels agaisnt God- does not necessarily mean that God's will is not being done in spite of him. Satan of scripture is the counterpoint to Christ, the voice that tells us we can never be redeemed. His portrayal is the personification of his role, and changes from year to year.

 

[R3quiem]

Some possibilities

1. Satan was bad from the beginning. This of course would mean that God directly created an evil being though.

2. Satan was made perfect, but chose to become evil. Generally it's understood that he became prideful and fell because of that.

3. God created Satan knowing full well that he would become evil, but every one of Satan's actions is part of God's overall plan. I think this is usually how Calvinists view Satan, since they believe absolutely everything is the will of God.

4. Satan is a metaphor for the evil in a man's heart. Under this view, it would not be a literal being, but just representative of all evil. This doesn't hold up well against Jesus saying that he saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning though. (Luke 10:18)

5. None of it is true. The above four possibilities are based in the fact that the Bible is true, there's always the possibility that it is not.

 

[Isambard]

As mentioned before, nowhere in the Bible does it say Satan fell from Heaven, except maybe in Revelations but that uses a future tense.

The OT also makes no real reference to Satan as he is understood today. Simply put, satan (rival) in the OT doesnt exist. Its just a bunch of ret-con and putting together a bunch of loose characters.

Satan in the NT isnt the fallen angel either. He is the beurecrat(sp?) in charge of the world to test humans (by God's own will). Only problem Jesus has with Satan is that he likes his job a little too much and has become too oppressive.

The fallen angel Satan appear much much later to plug the wholes the above has.

 

[R3quiem]

As mentioned before, nowhere in the Bible does it say Satan fell from Heaven, except maybe in Revelations but that uses a future tense.

Luke 10:18
He replied, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

Jesus here says he saw Satan fall from heaven.

The OT also makes no real reference to Satan as he is understood today. Simply put, satan (rival) in the OT doesnt exist. Its just a bunch of ret-con and putting together a bunch of loose characters.

Job 1
6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it." 8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."
9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."
12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."
Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

Satan and God having a direct conversation.

Satan in the NT isnt the fallen angel either. He is the beurecrat(sp?) in charge of the world to test humans (by God's own will). Only problem Jesus has with Satan is that he likes his job a little too much and has become too oppressive.

The fallen angel Satan appear much much later to plug the wholes the above has.

Again, see Luke 10:18.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Luke 10:18
He replied, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

Actually he says "was watching", i.e., while the disciples were on their journey through the Galilee without him. It's a statement of approval over their work: he means that as the disciples were casting out demons in his name, he saw the accuser of men fall from heaven. It isn't a history lesson about yesteryear, which would have nothing to do with the verses that surround it, but a statement about something that happened a few days before.

 

[R3quiem]

Actually he says "was watching", i.e., while the disciples were on their journey through the Galilee without him. It's a statement of approval over their work: he means that as the disciples were casting out demons in his name, he saw the accuser of men fall from heaven. It isn't a history lesson about yesteryear, which would have nothing to do with the verses that surround it, but a statement about something that happened a few days before.

That's one way of looking at it, it could be right.

Jesus did say in another verse that he existed before Abraham, so he could have seen anything that would have happened through history.

 

[DailyBlessings]

That's one way of looking at it, it could be right.

Jesus did say in another verse that he existed before Abraham, so he could have seen anything that would have happened through history.

Well, yes he could have. But I see no reason to believe that this is what the verse is about. Why would Jesus lapse into a history lesson all the sudden?

 

[R3quiem]

Well, yes he could have. But I see no reason to believe that this is what the verse is about. Why would Jesus lapse into a history lesson all the sudden?

I wouldn't call it a history lesson- it was one sentence.

They gladly told him that demons submit to his name, and he pointed out that he has seen Satan fall from heaven, in effect agreeing with them in that Satan has no power over him.

To me it doesn't make much sense that he would be speaking metaphorically here, saying that by these good works they are doing through faith, that evil is being defeated. Why would he reference Satan being cast from Heaven, and not from Earth? If he was merely saying that he is seeing them cast out evil, he probably would say something about Satan being cast from the Earth, not out of heaven.

 

[NavyGuy7]

As mentioned before, nowhere in the Bible does it say Satan fell from Heaven, except maybe in Revelations but that uses a future tense.

The OT also makes no real reference to Satan as he is understood today. Simply put, satan (rival) in the OT doesnt exist. Its just a bunch of ret-con and putting together a bunch of loose characters.

Satan in the NT isnt the fallen angel either. He is the beurecrat(sp?) in charge of the world to test humans (by God's own will). Only problem Jesus has with Satan is that he likes his job a little too much and has become too oppressive.

The fallen angel Satan appear much much later to plug the wholes the above has.

The whole purpose (so I have heard) of the OT is to prove that God is God and we are not. It doesn't have to specifically mention Satan. It is not about him, after all.

Actually, where in the title of Revelations does it say "future tense"? Some parts of it refer to the past, and to the present day. The part about the churches, can be applied to various kinds of people, past, present, and future. i.e. hypocrites, those who do nothing to further God's kingdom, etc. It is highly possible that "war in heaven" refers to just such an act in the past. "one-third of the stars", mentioned in the part about the "dragon's tail swiping across the sky", can also represent the other angels that fell with Satan, who were on his side, and that he ultimately was the cause of their fall.

And you haven't really answered a question from before.

If Satan is not God, is not of this world, and is not an angel, then what is he? He cannot be just a representation of evil, as he is mentioned specifically by name. If the bible had meant this, it would have said so literally, without any mention of a "father of lies". And, there would be no Anti-Christ, if there were no Satan, thus undoing the bible and Revelations.
So if he exists, he must exist as something, not a mortal, but not a divine being, either. The only thing i can think of would be...?
Anyone? Anyone? That's right, Billy.
An angel!

Besides, that's not the ultimate issue of this thread, though it is connected, I assume. The issue, I believe, was "If God created the devil, does that make him the devil?" Obviously not. We have already established they are two different beings. And if we have not, through all our point-making, then I have just proclaimed it.

(LOl, when did i switch from defense attorney to teacher in my tones? )

 

[NavyGuy7]

Not to mention, Satan is the ruler of this world, if only for the time being.
And don't forget; God is, was, and will be. He exists in all timelines. Just said that for a thought-provoker, no real point behind it. None, unless... you can assign one to it? My head is kinda empty right now, lol.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

He exists in all timelines.

Is there a difference in being outside of time, and in existing in all of it?

 

[R3quiem]

Is there a difference in being outside of time, and in existing in all of it?

Yes.

If a being exists through all time, say, from the moment of the big bang to whenever this physical universe ends, he has lived life in a linear way. He is bound by time and cannot escape it.

If a being exists outside of time, existence is not linear to him. He can see past, present, and future as if it was one. He is not bound by time.

 

[NavyGuy7]

Well, assuming God created time, there really is no difference. Just because he exists in time, does not make him bound by it. He is omnipresent and omnipotent, after all. You'd think he could be in all timelines, and be outside time if he wanted to.

 

[Blackguard_]

Then what is he? really? He is definitely not God, that's for certain.

He's the Accuser, and starts a war in Heaven at some part. And I think you have me confused with the OP. I nver said Satan was God.

However, I disagree that Jesus really refers to himself as Lucifer. That's reaching, if I ever heard of it. You can't prove that what he means by morning star is this same star referred to as "Lucifer". Not decisively. At this point, everything we have said is just that, mere speculation.

It's simple. Venus=the morning star=Lucifer. He refers to himself as the "bright and morning star" which the Romans called "lucifer" and which is the planet Venus. There's only one morning star.

Jesus refers to himself as "Lucifer" just as much as that Isaiah passage refers to the devil (or whoever it refers to) as Lucifer. It's a weird roundabout sort of
"translation". Newer Bibles get it right.

KJV Isaiah 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!"


NIV Isaiah 14:12
"How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"

So I ask again, if Satan was not an angel before his fall, and he is not God, then what is he? He existed before the world and humans were created, so he can't be anything like in this world. Logically, I have deduced he must have been an angel, based on what I know. Yet it is a mere speculation... perhaps I will have to explore this more, to see if there IS conclusive proof. At least I'll have something to do while I wait to be shipped off to boot camp.

"angel" is a pretty broad term though. He can be an evil angel without being a fallen one, and fits with the Accuser view of the Devil.