# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  What does foreknowledge mean when it comes to Lucifer/Adam?

## jmdrake

Hello.  First off welcome back Sola_Fide!

Second, predictably we have the same rehash of the old argument that SF never takes to it's conclusion.

Here is the Calvinist syllogism.  Man is predestined either to go to heaven or hell for two reasons. 

1) God's foreknowledge plus His omnipotence means that only those He chose from the beginning of time have a chance to be saved.

2) This is fair because all men have a fallen nature and only those God decides to intervene and save can come to Him.

But...and this is a big but....Lucifer was not created with a fallen nature.  Neither was Adam.  They were both created perfect.  So...why did they choose sin?  Calvinists do not have an answer for this and pretend the question doesn't matter.  But it does.  Either Lucifer and Adam had a real choice on whether to sin or not, implying that foreknowledge and omnipotence does not preclude real choice, or God was the author of sin and of the fall of mankind...which makes no sense.

----------


## wizardwatson

There's lots of heresies floating about.  This Calvinist weed has been particularly strong and troublesome and the scenery will be much improved when it's uprooted and thrown in the fire with the rest.

We wait though, as with everything else.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Jmdrake, what does foreknowledge mean?  Because the way you are using it now is not the way the Bible uses it.  Refer to my thread to understand how the Bible uses it.  

Let's get the definition correct before we continue, deal?

----------


## Sola_Fide

Foreknowledge does NOT mean "seeing something in advance".

Refer to my thread to see how the Bible uses the word.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Foreknowledge does NOT mean "seeing something in advance".
> 
> Refer to my thread to see how the Bible uses the word.


What does "predestined" mean?  That's also in the same verse that uses "foreknew".

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What does "predestined" mean?  That's also in the same verse that uses "foreknew".


Predestined means that the elect were chosen before the beginning of time.

Foreknowledge does not mean seeing in advance.

Read the verses.  God forsees PEOPLE, not simply future events.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Predestined means that the elect were chosen before the beginning of time.
> 
> Foreknowledge does not mean seeing in advance.
> 
> Read the verses.  God forsees PEOPLE, not simply future events.


I know it's hard to believe, given how lost and heretical I am, but I have actually read the bible.  

You don't labor very much to explain your position.  You play mister mystery as if there's some reason you've given me after years of seeing you repeat the same lines over and over to see you as more a teacher of the gospel than a professor of boredom.  

"God forsees PEOPLE, not simply future events."  

You need to elaborate, dude.  What is your point?  

You sound like a someone on drugs mesmerized by the mundane.  It is hard for me to tell if you are simply lost in your own abstraction or are extremely condescending.  Lack of words doesn't help me clear up this mystery or consider other alternatives.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake, what does foreknowledge mean?  Because the way you are using it now is not the way the Bible uses it.  Refer to my thread to understand how the Bible uses it.  
> 
> Let's get the definition correct before we continue, deal?


Sola_Fide, how can say I'm not using it correctly if you don't know how I'm using it?

There is only one way to use it.  God's foreknowledge applies to Lucifer and Adam, who were both created *without* a fallen nature, just the same as it applies to modern man, who inherited a fallen nature from Adam's sin.

Now if you disagree, explain why there is a different foreknowledge for Lucifer and Adam as there is for anyone else.  I'm betting you won't come up with an explanation because you don't really disagree with how I'm using the word foreknowledge.  You're just pretending to disagree because you can't stomach the obvious conclusions of the truth.

----------


## jmdrake

> Foreknowledge does NOT mean "seeing something in advance".
> 
> Refer to my thread to see how the Bible uses the word.


Question.  Did God force Lucifer to sin?  Yes or no?  Was Lucifer created perfect?  Yes or no?  Was Lucifer created for the purpose of him (Lucifer) sinning?  Yes or no?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Lucifer was not created with a fallen nature.  Neither was Adam.  They were both created perfect.


Where in the Bible does it tell us that Adam was created morally perfect? Specifically, please. Thanks.

----------


## The Northbreather

> There's lots of heresies floating about.  This Calvinist weed has been particularly strong and troublesome and the scenery will be much improved when it's uprooted and thrown in the fire with the rest.
> 
> We wait though, as with everything else.


Throw it _in_ the fire? Your not doing it right.

----------


## jmdrake

> Where in the Bible does it tell us that Adam was created morally perfect? Specifically, please. Thanks.


Genesis 1 - 3.  After everything God created, including man, He declared it "good."  When God says something is "good" it is without sin.  That is why Jesus told Nicodemus "There is none good but God."  Also there would have been no temptation for the knowledge of good and evil if Adam had been created morally imperfect because if he had he would have known the evil already inside him.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Throw it _in_ the fire? Your not doing it right.


Not sure what you mean, but I'd like to point out that the weed I was referring to was Calvinist ideology and not our friend Sola_Fide.  LOL.  Rereading it, it could be read that way.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I know it's hard to believe, given how lost and heretical I am, but I have actually read the bible.  
> 
> You don't labor very much to explain your position.  You play mister mystery as if there's some reason you've given me after years of seeing you repeat the same lines over and over to see you as more a teacher of the gospel than a professor of boredom.  
> 
> "God forsees PEOPLE, not simply future events."  
> 
> You need to elaborate, dude.  What is your point?  
> 
> You sound like a someone on drugs mesmerized by the mundane.  It is hard for me to tell if you are simply lost in your own abstraction or are extremely condescending.  Lack of words doesn't help me clear up this mystery or consider other alternatives.


Well, those are just a bunch of personal insults, and I won't respond in kind.  Sadly, I do have to explain the Bible to you, because you do not know it.

The issue is that foreknowledge is not simply "seeing things in advance".  It s a term of relationship.  Look at how it is used:





> *Romans 8:29
> 
> For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.*






> *Romans 11:2
> 
>  God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah--how he appealed to God against Israel:*


Foreknowledge is not simply seeing things in advance.  It is a term that means that God has set his love on an individual before the beginning of time.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Question.  Did God force Lucifer to sin?  Yes or no?  Was Lucifer created perfect?  Yes or no?  Was Lucifer created for the purpose of him (Lucifer) sinning?  Yes or no?


Who....even cares?  That has literally nothing to do with what we are talking about.

In the Bible foreknowledge is not used the way that you are using it here.  Foreknowledge does not simply mean "seeing things in advance" like the way you are using it.

----------


## hells_unicorn

I was going to come in here and throw a few zingers around to put some rather snarky individuals whom I will abstain from naming in their place, but Sola basically destroyed the entire woefully mistaken premise from where both of these individuals were running, so I'm not going to bother. There are more productive things to be doing with one times than giving what is holy unto dogs or casting pearls before swine.

----------


## jmdrake

> Who....even cares?  That has literally nothing to do with what we are talking about.


1) I predicted that reaction to you.  Faced with facts that destroy your argument you come back with "Who even cares?"

2) This is my thread so it has everything to do with what I'm talking about.  




> In the Bible foreknowledge is not used the way that you are using it here.


Nope.  That's *your* interpretation of the Bible.  I proved that in *your* thread using the substitution rule.

----------


## jmdrake

> I was going to come in here and throw a few zingers around to put some rather snarky individuals whom I will abstain from naming in their place, but Sola basically destroyed the entire woefully mistaken premise from where both of these individuals were running, so I'm not going to bother. There are more productive things to be doing with one times than giving what is holy unto dogs or casting pearls before swine.


So basically you agree with nothing.  Fine.  I already knew you were as bad at Bible interpretation as SF so that doesn't change anything.

----------


## Superfluous Man

The cross was plan A. It wan't some contingency plan for just in case Adam sinned. God created Adam with the nature that Adam as an unfallen man had, created the circumstances in which Adam lived, and created the test Adam was to be given, all of which entailed a 100% chance that Adam was going to fail that test. Had it been the case that Adam were not going to fail the test God gave him, then God would have given him some other test that he would have been certain to fail.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Well, those are just a bunch of personal insults, and I won't respond in kind.  Sadly, I do have to explain the Bible to you, because you do not know it.
> 
> The issue is that foreknowledge is not simply "seeing things in advance".  It s a term of relationship.  Look at how it is used:
> 
> Foreknowledge is not simply seeing things in advance.  It is a term that means that God has set his love on an individual before the beginning of time.


Do you think the Lord is above insulting people when it's appropriate?  In Ezekiel 23 he's so angry at Israel, he compares Israel's level of whoredom to a woman who likes the Egyptians for their giant schlongs and copious loads of jizz.  

I didn't go near that far.  I simply said you are condescending, and boring and you need to elaborate more because to me you only state the obvious, and allude to a mysterious end to your teaching with homework assignments ("go read this") as if you are some enlightened zen master.

I've read a lot of people's writings over the years, many about scripture, and I thought quite a few had something to say.  I only ask you to elaborate to determine if you have something to say.

But all you seem to say is that you know and I don't.  And you don't even elaborate on that.  

Anyway, nothing new.

----------


## Superfluous Man

"Lucifer" is a latin word, meaning shining one. The only reason people think of that as a name for the original state of the Devil as a sinless angel is because of a mistranslation of Isaiah 14, where the king of Babylon is called a "shining one" using the Hebrew word that means shining one, and they chose to use the Latin word with a capital-L to make it look like a proper name.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Genesis 1 - 3.  After everything God created, including man, He declared it "good."  When God says something is "good" it is without sin.  That is why Jesus told Nicodemus "There is none good but God."  Also there would have been no temptation for the knowledge of good and evil if Adam had been created morally imperfect because if he had he would have known the evil already inside him.


I didn't ask you for your personal assumptions. Barnabas was "a good man" (Acts 11:24), but he certainly was not a morally perfect man. To create a universal meaning of something to make it read like you want it to read is no different than what S_F is doing. And you're actually helping his case whether you know it or not. His entire premise of Man's loss of ability to receive God as a consequence of Original Sin depends completely upon Adam being morally perfect. I'll ask you again. Please show us, specifically, where we are told in the Bible that God created Adam morally perfect. I'm not asking for your personal assumption of what the word "good" means. I'm asking you for the specific scripture that says that Adam was created to be morally perfect. Surely, it would be in Genesis some place. It's a rather critical bit of information t be left out given that it's the stuff that doctrine is made of. Thank You.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 1) I predicted that reaction to you.  Faced with facts that destroy your argument you come back with "Who even cares?"
> 
> 2) This is my thread so it has everything to do with what I'm talking about.  
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  That's *your* interpretation of the Bible.  I proved that in *your* thread using the substitution rule.


Jmdrake,

The Bible does not use word foreknowledge like you are using it here.




> *Romans 8:29
> 
> For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.*






> *Romans 11:2
> 
>  God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah--how he appealed to God against Israel:*


You are using the word to simply mean God seeing things in advance.

The Bible uses the word to describe a relationship with the elect.

You are using the word differently than the Bible uses it, therefore you are wrong.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I didn't ask you for your personal assumptions. To create a universal meaning of something is no different than what S_F is doing. I'll ask you again. Please show us where we are told in the Bible that God created Adam morally perfect. Thank You.


I think there is a need for definition here.

Literally, "perfect" means complete or mature, in which case the Bible does not teach that God created Adam perfect. He created Adam with room to grow.

But in the colloquial sense of perfect being flawless, or, in the context of this question, sinless, yes Romans 5:12-18 tells us that sin entered the world through Adam's trespass. Prior to that event, there was no sin in the world.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> The issue is that foreknowledge is not simply "seeing things in advance".  It s a term of relationship.


This is correct.

If somebody does not end up glorified in Heaven forever, then God did not "foreknow" that person.

Every person whom God foreknew will end up glorified.

God did not "foreknow" Satan.

----------


## pcosmar

> Who....even cares?  That has literally nothing to do with what we are talking about.


You should. It is key to what is being discussed.

Lucifer's was the Original sin. From which all sin comes.. 

Was he created for that purpose? Or did he chose to rebel?

He corrupted Man who was created without sin? Was that God's intention? or did He Know it would happen, and allowed it to continue?

You should care.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You should. It is key to what is being discussed.
> 
> Lucifer's was the Original sin. From which all sin comes.. 
> 
> Was he created for that purpose? Or did he chose to rebel?
> 
> He corrupted Man who was created without sin? Was that God's intention? or did He Know it would happen, and allowed it to continue?
> 
> You should care.


It has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are talking about.  JMdrake, in the title of this thread, used the word "foreknowledge" in the way that the Biblical writers did not use the term. That is the entire issue.

----------


## jmdrake

> It has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are talking about.  JMdrake, in the title of this thread, used the word "foreknowledge" in the way that the Biblical writers did not use the term. That is the entire issue.


Sola_Fide, you are not using the word "foreknowledge" correctly.  But I will prove you wrong using your own words.

If _God has entered into a special relationship with_ with Lucifer and Adam such that both would fall into sin then God is the originator of sin.  If you're argument is that the problem is that God did not have a special relationship with Lucifer and Adam and that the lack of such a relationship is what caused them to sin, then God is still, in your model, the originator of sin.  Point, set match.

----------


## jmdrake

> I didn't ask you for your personal assumptions. Barnabas was "a good man" (Acts 11:24), but he certainly was not a morally perfect man.


This isn't my "personal assumption."  This is Bible.  According to the Bible death entered into the world after sin.  (Romans 5:12).  God told man that *if* they ate of the forbidden tree they would die. (Gen 2:17).  There is no logical reading of Genesis 1 - 3 other than Adam and Eve were created without sin.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola_Fide, you are not using the word "foreknowledge" correctly.  But I will prove you wrong using your own words.
> 
> If _God has entered into a special relationship with_ with Lucifer and Adam such that both would fall into sin then God is the originator of sin.  If you're argument is that the problem is that God did not have a special relationship with Lucifer and Adam and that the lack of such a relationship is what caused them to sin, then God is still, in your model, the originator of sin.  Point, set match.


Uh...what?

----------


## jmdrake

> Uh...what?


Simple.  Did God have a relationship with Lucifer prior to his sin?  Yes or no?  Did He have a relationship with Adam and Eve prior to their sin?  Yes or no?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Simple.  Did God have a relationship with Lucifer prior to his sin?  Yes or no?  Did He have a relationship with Adam and Eve prior to their sin?  Yes or no?


It has absolutely nothing to do with the issue....at all.

The Bible uses the word foreknowledge FOR THE ELECT.  Not anyone else.




> *Romans 8:29
> 
> For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.*






> *Romans 11:2
> 
>  God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah--how he appealed to God against Israel:*

----------


## lilymc

> This isn't my "personal assumption."  This is Bible.  According to the Bible death entered into the world after sin.  (Romans 5:12).  God told man that *if* they ate of the forbidden tree they would die. (Gen 2:17).  There is no logical reading of Genesis 1 - 3 other than Adam and Eve were created without sin.


I don't think anyone is claiming that Adam wasn't sinless (before he sinned.)   The question was, was he created morally perfect?  I think you guys should be on the same page on your definition of perfect before going further with that.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> This isn't my "personal assumption."  This is Bible.  According to the Bible death entered into the world after sin.  (Romans 5:12).  God told man that *if* they ate of the forbidden tree they would die. (Gen 2:17).  There is no logical reading of Genesis 1 - 3 other than Adam and Eve were created without sin.


Created without sin means created innocent. No? Certainly the Bible leaves us with this information. How does innocent all of a sudden turn into moral perfection, though? Hm? How? Who said that? Did God tell us that? If so, then, where? Show us, please. Thanks.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> I don't think anyone is claiming that Adam wasn't sinless (before he sinned.)   The question was, was he created morally perfect?  I think you guys should be on the same page on your definition of perfect before going further with that.


The KJV (which is the primary reference that Sola has used, which has been agreed to by parties for purposes of this conversation) uses perfect as meaning "fulfilled". In this sense, if we say that Adam was morally imperfect, we have to conclude that there is something wrong with God since he built Adam to fail. Not really a good argument. Adam's moral faculty was naturally imbued with the ability to do what was expected of him, hence why his failure was tied to the command from God being positive rather than simply natural in character (no reason is given for not consuming the forbidden fruit other than that he forbade it, if another reason would have existed, it would have been impossible for Adam to Fall unless there was intentional moral defect in Adam) and he willfully chose to be disobedient.

The notion that perfect means infallible or even flawless is a modern one, the word perfect was not understood that way in the 16th century when the KJV was translated, otherwise the translators would have chosen another word in place of it where it was used.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Simple.  Did God have a relationship with Lucifer prior to his sin?  Yes or no?  Did He have a relationship with Adam and Eve prior to their sin?  Yes or no?


God has a relationship with everyone.

The question is what kind of relationship.

At no time has Satan's relationship with God ever been that of a son.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Lucifer's was the Original sin. From which all sin comes.


The Bible says that sin entered the world through Adam's sin.

----------


## jmdrake

> God has a relationship with everyone.
> 
> The question is what kind of relationship.
> 
> At no time has Satan's relationship with God ever been that of a son.


Satan was not Lucifer's original name.  According to the Bible Lucifer was originally a covering cherub.  (Ezekiel 28:12-18).  The book of Job suggests that unfallen angels are considered sons of God.  (Job 1:6).  So if Lucifer was once an unfallen angel (a fallen angel by definition cannot be a covering cherub) and if unfallen angels are also called sons of God....then.....?

----------


## jmdrake

> The Bible says that sin entered the world through Adam's sin.


Right.  But sin existed in the universe before it existed in the world.  (1 John 3:8)

----------


## euphemia

jmdrake, I think the only point is that God will always be consistent with his own character.  He is holy, just, and good.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Satan was not Lucifer's original name.


What was his original name? It wasn't Lucifer.

I don't think the expression "sons of God" when used of angels is a description of their relationship with God so much as their divine natures relative to human beings. It isn't just unfallen angels who are called sons of God, but fallen ones too.

Nowhere in Ezekiel 28 does it say that it's talking about Satan. It says it's talking about the prince of Tyre. But even if you take the part about being a cherub in Eden literally, I don't see how we are supposed to know which cherub this was. The sin this being committed and the judgment that followed were things that happened when human nations already existed on the earth, so it can't have been before Adam's sin.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Satan was not Lucifer's original name.  According to the Bible Lucifer was originally a covering cherub.  (Ezekiel 28:12-18).  The book of Job suggests that unfallen angels are considered sons of God.  (Job 1:6).  So if Lucifer was once an unfallen angel (a fallen angel by definition cannot be a covering cherub) and if unfallen angels are also called sons of God....then.....?


Wow....that is just horrible. 

Look at how far this insane conversation has gone from Paul simply saying that God foreknew His elect.  It's scary actually. ..

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't think anyone is claiming that Adam wasn't sinless (before he sinned.)   The question was, was he created morally perfect?  I think you guys should be on the same page on your definition of perfect before going further with that.





> Created without sin means created innocent. No? Certainly the Bible leaves us with this information. How does innocent all of a sudden turn into moral perfection, though? Hm? How? Who said that? Did God tell us that? If so, then, where? Show us, please. Thanks.


Okay.  What is your definition (Natural Citizen) of moral perfection?  Here is mine.  Not having a sinful nature.  A human child cannot reach the age of conscious thought without sinning.  I love my kids to death but I know they were sinning before they could talk.  Here's an example.  One of my children, as a toddler, got the biggest kick out of hitting people (usually much older kids) and causing them pain.  He would laugh about it.  I mentally dismissed it.  Then one day at church he accidentally hit himself and was crying.  As I was trying to soothe him, one of the teenagers at church said "Well now he knows how it feels when he hits people."  Aghast I said "What mean thing to say."  She said "Mr. Drake.  He hits us and it hurts."  After that I was very careful to make sure that he didn't hit anyone else at least when I was around to stop it.  Eventually the negative behavior stopped.  I'm sure there were other things he and his brother did as toddlers that were wrong but this is what immediately comes to mind.  I mean automatic sinning without being tempted by some talking serpent (Eve) or the love of your life (Adam). We have a bent toward sin that I do not believe Adam and Eve were created with.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> jmdrake, I think the only point is that God will always be consistent with his own character.  He is holy, just, and good.


That's right.  God is without sin, and won't allow sin in His presence.  That is why the ones whose sin has not been atoned for will be cast out of His presence.   Because He is just to condemn man for his sin.

----------


## jmdrake

> Wow....that is just horrible.


You call the Bible horrible?  Really?    No wonder you are so lost.  Lucifer was, according to the Bible, an angel created perfect and put in a special place of honor by God.

Ezekiel 28:15 _Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee._

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You call the Bible horrible?  Really?    No wonder you are so lost.


Jmdrake,

God foreknows people, not simply actions.

That is the text right in front of your face which you can't deny.

----------


## jmdrake

> jmdrake, I think the only point is that God will always be consistent with his own character.  He is holy, just, and good.


Nobody is arguing that God isn't consistent with His own character.  In fact *that is MY point!*  A holy, just and good God would not create beings, declare them "perfect" and then force them to sin.  Therefore the only way sin could have entered into Lucifer, Adam and Eve is by their own freewill choice.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake,
> 
> God foreknows people, not simply actions.
> 
> That is the text right in front of your face which you can't deny.


Sola_Fide, I never argued that God didn't foreknow people.  What does that have to do with the fact that God created Lucifer as a perfect unfallen angel and that unfallen angels are described as being sons of God?  That's what you called "horrible."  

Further that is *your interpretation of the text*.  I already denied your interpretation so you are not being honest when you say I "can't deny" it.  Further I also proved that even using your interpretation, it does not foreclose their being freewill.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola_Fide, I never argued that God didn't foreknow people.  What does that have to do with the fact that God created Lucifer as a perfect unfallen angel and that unfallen angels are described as being sons of God?  That's what you called "horrible."  
> 
> Further that is *your interpretation of the text*.  I already denied your interpretation so you are not being honest when you say I "can't deny" it.  Further I also proved that even using your interpretation, it does not foreclose their being freewill.


It doesn't have anything to do with Lucifer or Adam. I still have no idea why you even brought that up. 

You still are using the word foreknowledge in the way the Bible doesn't use it.  * The Bible uses it as a term of relationship with the elect* .  You are still using it as God seeing things in the future.

The Bible uses the word one way, and you can't accept it.  Who is wrong here?

----------


## lilymc

> Nobody is arguing that God isn't consistent with His own character.  In fact *that is MY point!*  A holy, just and good God would not create beings, declare them "perfect" and then force them to sin.  Therefore the only way sin could have entered into Lucifer, Adam and Eve is by their own freewill choice.


Exactly.  It's just common sense, really. Something that's not very common, evidently.

I'm always amazed that anyone actually believes that God preprogrammed people to sin and reject Him, and others to love and obey Him... like robots, or puppets on a string.   That would make God immoral... which apparently doesn't even faze the Calvinists here.

----------


## pcosmar

> The Bible uses the word one way, and you can't accept it.  Who is wrong here?


Perhaps it is you that misunderstands.

Where did sin come from? Adam was not created to sin..

Lucifer was not created to sin. and yet he did..

Christ redeemed Man.

Several here get it. What is your problem.?. if not wrong teachings?

----------


## otherone

> I'm always amazed that anyone actually believes that God preprogrammed people to sin and reject Him, and others to love and obey Him


That's not what Sola says at all.  His claim is that all men sin.  Salvation is God's choice, not man's, and it isn't conditional.

----------


## pcosmar

Oh,, and as a point of reference.. the "Elect" is mankind as a whole, all who do not reject God.
For all of time.

Angels,, fallen and obedient are not the "Elect". 

it is not a preferred group of people.. It is all people..except those that choose to reject salvation.

----------


## lilymc

> That's not what Sola says at all.  His claim is that all men sin.  Salvation is God's choice, not man's, and it isn't conditional.


Are you a Calvinist?

----------


## otherone

> Are you a Calvinist?


No, why?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Where did sin come from? Adam was not created to sin..



What do you think happened then? God made a mistake in creation?

----------


## pcosmar

> That's not what Sola says at all.  His claim is that all men sin.  Salvation is God's choice, not man's, and it isn't conditional.


His claim is more than that..

to believe it you must believe that God Deliberately Created an Army of Corrupt and powerful beings to torture and corrupt His Creation.

I don't buy that.

----------


## pcosmar

> What do you think happened then? God made a mistake in creation?


Nope. 
No Mistake.

I do believe that he allows,, more than he intends.
and there is a bigger picture.

----------


## lilymc

> No, why?


I just wanted to know.

----------


## otherone

> His claim is more than that..
> 
> to believe it you must believe that God Deliberately Created an Army of Corrupt and powerful beings to torture and corrupt His Creation.
> 
> I don't buy that.


IDK.  I believe things are exactly as intended to be.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Nope. 
> No Mistake.
> 
> I do believe that he allows,, more than he intends.
> and there is a bigger picture.


Did he merely allow the cross? Or did he intend it all along?

----------


## Natural Citizen

God had not told us whether or not there are conditions attached to Election. The conditions of Election belongs no more to the Calvinist than to anyone else. 

Deuteronomy 29:29, bitches.

----------


## pcosmar

> Did he merely allow the cross? Or did he intend it all along?


intended
When he spoke "Let there be" and before mans fall,, the plan was redemption.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Okay.  What is your definition (Natural Citizen) of moral perfection?


I don't know.

----------


## otherone

> God had not told us whether or not there are conditions attached to Election. The conditions of Election belongs no more to the Calvinist than to anyone else. 
> 
> Deuteronomy 29:29, bitches.


Did Sola mention that only Calvinists are saved?  Because that would make salvation somewhat conditional (unless God MAKES people Calvinists, of course).

----------


## Superfluous Man

> intended
> When he spoke "Let there be" and before mans fall,, the plan was redemption.


I agree.

And in that case, it must also be true that God intended for there to be sin from which to redeem people.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> unless God MAKES people Calvinists, of course



This must be so anyway, regardless of whether or not only Calvinists were saved.

I don't think that only Calvinists are saved. But I do think that ultimately all that happens, including people believing Calvinism, is caused by a chain of causation that goes back to the one uncaused first cause of God himself.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Did Sola mention that only Calvinists are saved?


Essentially, yes. Partcularly by way of projecting the illusion that Calvinist doctrine is of doctrinal superiority.  The entire doctrine exists to divide christians and separate them from God. 




> Because that would make salvation somewhat conditional (unless God MAKES people Calvinists, of course).


Do you understand what Unconditional Election means to the Calvinist? Because that's precisely what he's promoting. 
The Calvinist would have us think that man has no ability whatsoever to cry out to God for His mercy. And that's biblically proven false.

And not once has S_F offered anything that tells us that God took away Man's ability to receive Him as a consequence of Original Sin. Not once. wiz nailed it good, I thought. His entire rhetoric is abstract.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> The Calvinist would have us think that man has no ability whatsoever  cry out to God for His mercy. And that's biblically proven false.


You're saying that the Bible teaches that it is within a human being's nature to cry out to God for mercy without God first performing some act of grace on that human being to draw them to do that?

----------


## otherone

> You're saying that the Bible teaches that it is within a human being's nature to cry out to God for mercy without God first performing some act of grace on that human being to draw them to do that?


ABSOLUTELY!
Who can say that ALL that cry for mercy aren't actually his elect?

----------


## otherone

> Essentially, yes. Partcularly by way of projecting the illusion that Calvinist doctrine is of doctrinal superiority.


What denominations (besides UUs...for good reason) don't believe they have doctrinal superiority?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You're saying that the Bible teaches that it is within a human being's nature to cry out to God for mercy without God first performing some act of grace on that human being to draw them to do that?


You know, the very first thing that S_F did in the thread was to define Man's spiritual relationship with God in his own Calvinist terms. And his terms are biblically false. By doing that, it is fairly apparent that he knew the err of his rhetoric and doesn't want to have it addressed and so he kind of established his own definition of the spiritual relationship that God has with Man. 

Man is of Supreme importance because of his spiritual nature. Man is of Divine origin.  God never rejected the spirit of Man and no place in the Bible is this told to us. No place. S_F's doctrine would have us believe exactly the opposite. That man is of no importance to God. This is false.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What denominations (besides UUs...for good reason) don't believe they have doctrinal superiority?


I'm not playing 20 questions with you. It's the same exact thing that S_F does in order to avoid having to acknowledge his own bs.

----------


## RJB

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...y-Been-Decided

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You know, the very first thing that S_F did in the thread was to define Man's spiritual relationship with God in his own Calvinist terms. And his terms are biblical false., By doing that, it is fairly apparent that he knew the err of hs logic and so he kind of established his own definition. 
> 
> Man is of Supreme importance because of his spiritual nature. Man is of Divine origin.  God never rejected the spirit of Man and no place in the Bible is this told to us. No place. S_F's doctrine would have us believe exactly the opposite. That man is of no importance to God. This is false.



Whoa. Hold on.  Where does this "Calvinist" stuff come from?  I have not said anything about Calvin, and I disagree with Calvin on many very important things.  I am not a Calvinist and I don't want to be lumped in with him.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Whoa. Hold on.  Where does this "Calvinist" stuff come from?  I have not said anything about Calvin, and I disagree with Calvin on many very important things.  I am not a Calvinist and I don't want to be lumped in with him.


Chickens coming home to roost now, are they, S_F?

----------


## otherone

> I'm not playing 20 questions with you. It's the same exact thing that S_F does in order to avoid having to acknowledge his own bs.


HUH?  The question was rhetorical.  The point was that every sect believes it's doctrine superior.  I don't think that is unique to Sola or Calvinists. I think you would have a hard time finding any Calvinist who believes only Calvinists are elect, especially as they point out only God knows.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You know, the very first thing that S_F did in the thread was to define Man's spiritual relationship with God in his own Calvinist terms. And his terms are biblically false. By doing that, it is fairly apparent that he knew the err of his rhetoric and doesn't want to have it addressed and so he kind of established his own definition of the spiritual relationship that God has with Man. 
> 
> Man is of Supreme importance because of his spiritual nature. Man is of Divine origin.  God never rejected the spirit of Man and no place in the Bible is this told to us. No place. S_F's doctrine would have us believe exactly the opposite. That man is of no importance to God. This is false.


I don't understand how this is an answer to my question.

Also, where are you getting the things you say in your second paragraph? Man is of divine origin in the sense that God made man, in which case everything that exists is of divine origin. But, "God never rejected the spirit of man"? God definitely rejects the spirits of some men. The Bible does teach that. And some men are of no importance to God, except inasmuch as it's important to God's holiness and justice to punish them as sinners. Those that are important in a positive sense are important because God chose to give them an importance that they didn't have on their own. This is biblical.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Sigh. I can't take some of you anymore. I just can't. Have fun on S_F's funride to hell. This is a choice. Make no mistake about that.

I've got better things to do. So I'm dusting my feet. Later.

----------


## jmdrake

> What do you think happened then? God made a mistake in creation?


Simple.  Adam was created with freewill and he made the freewill choice to sin.  Lucifer was created with freewill and he made the freewill choice to sin also.  God is not the author of sin.

----------


## jmdrake

> That's not what Sola says at all.  His claim is that all men sin.  Salvation is God's choice, not man's, and it isn't conditional.


Right.  That's Sola_Fide's "out".  And this thread crushes that "out."  Adam didn't need someone to choose salvation before he sinned.  Adam didn't need saving before he sinned.  So Adam, a being created sinless and without a sinful nature, willfully choose sin.  That or God choose sin for him before choosing salvation for him.  And *that* simply makes no sense.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Chickens coming home to roost now, are they, S_F?


What on earth are you talking about?

----------


## jmdrake

> What was his original name? It wasn't Lucifer.


According to the Bible it was.  If you wish to make up a false claim like that at least attempt to point to a Bible verse that supports your position.  




> I don't think the expression "sons of God" when used of angels is a description of their relationship with God so much as their divine natures relative to human beings. It isn't just unfallen angels who are called sons of God, but fallen ones too.


So you are simply destroying your own argument further.  You said that God never had a father/son relationship with Lucifer.  Now you're saying it exists even after Lucifer became Satan.





> Nowhere in Ezekiel 28 does it say that it's talking about Satan. It says it's talking about the prince of Tyre.


That is an incorrect interpretation of Ezekiel 28.  For one thing it was the king of Tyre, not the prince.  For another, throughout the Bible God uses dual prophecies.  For example when God said in Revelation "Babylon is fallen" and "come out of her my people" he wasn't talking about literal Babylon which had already fallen.  God gave a dual prophecy in Ezekiel, talking about how the king of Tyre but giving attributes that could not have applied to any human.




> But even if you take the part about being a cherub in Eden literally, I don't see how we are supposed to know which cherub this was. The sin this being committed and the judgment that followed were things that happened when human nations already existed on the earth, so it can't have been before Adam's sin.


The one who sinned from the beginning.

Eze 28:15
_15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee._

Compare with:

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.
_

1 John 3:8
_He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil._

Note the commonality in all of those verses.  Lucifer was perfect until sin was found in him.  (Again that *can't* be any post Adam human.)  The devil was the first sinner, liar and murderer.  There is no other possibly Biblical explanation than that of Lucifer being a perfect angel that became the devil and Satan.

----------


## pcosmar

> Whoa. Hold on.  Where does this "Calvinist" stuff come from?  I have not said anything about Calvin, and I disagree with Calvin on many very important things.  I am not a Calvinist and I don't want to be lumped in with him.


OK,, so you don't like Calvin.

Still you keep pushing the same doctrine as Calvin that  several folks recognize as Calvinistic.

I Know it from the man who Baptized me and was a Pastor the first few years after I was saved.
It is the same teaching.

----------


## pcosmar

> Simple.  Adam was created with freewill and he made the freewill choice to sin.  Lucifer was created with freewill and he made the freewill choice to sin also.  God is not the author of sin.


Lucifer had the will but not the freedom.. He was created to serve. He was not free to choose,, but willfully did so.

That is Original Sin.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Lucifer had the will but not the freedom.. He was created to serve. He was not free to choose,, but willfully did so.
> 
> That is Original Sin.


How do you know any of this stuff that you say?   Where does the Bible even talk about these things?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nope. 
> No Mistake.
> 
> I do believe that he allows,, more than he intends.
> and there is a bigger picture.


That's a belief alright, but its not a Biblical belief.  The God of the Bible is one that intends and directs the end from the beginning, and it is His PURPOSE that will stand:




> *Isaiah 46:10
> 
> I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'*

----------


## pcosmar

> How do you know any of this stuff that you say?   Where does the Bible even talk about these things?


It is in the Book. and in the scripture that was removed from common knowledge. (Books of Enoch)

Sin entered the  world through Adam.. It existed before Adam.

This is the Word as you well know.
Satan was Cast to earth. He is still here. And will be until Christ kicks him off the throne.

This is also scripture.

In the mean time,, he is the prince of this world.
and that too is allowed. for now.




> 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'


I expect so.
but,, what is His Purpose? (something to meditate on)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It is in the Book. and in the scripture that was removed from common knowledge. (Books of Enoch)
> 
> Sin entered the  world through Adam.. It existed before Adam.
> 
> This is the Word as you well know.
> Satan was Cast to earth. He is still here. And will be until Christ kicks him off the throne.
> 
> This is also scripture.
> 
> ...


What historical evidence do you have to say the Book of Enoch was "removed" from the canon?

What evidence do you have that Christians ever regarded the Book of Enoch as inspired Scripture?

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Are you a Calvinist?


While we're in the accusation game, if I may ask, are you a sock-puppet? I ask because Natural Citizen's latest neg rep leads me to believe that you and he are the same person, or that you like to team up when somebody says something other than what you want to hear.

----------


## pcosmar

> What evidence do you have that Christians ever regarded the Book of Enoch as inspired Scripture?


Jude.

and Jude quoted the Prophet Enoch. do you have a problem with that?
Apparently the words of the prophet were considered scripture,, and have been down through the years.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Sigh. I can't take some of you anymore. I just can't. Have fun on S_F's funride to hell. This is a choice. Make no mistake about that.
> 
> I've got better things to do. So I'm dusting my feet. Later.


Given your rather childish and unprovoked neg rep comment towards me earlier, this little passive-aggressive routine of yours has a bit of trouble passing the smell test. Do watch out for the Calvinists hiding under you bed before going night night.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Jude.
> 
> and Jude Quoted the Prophet Enoch. do you have a problem with that?


Yeah I do have a problem with that.   Paul quoted Epimenides.  Is Epimenides inspired?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> While we're in the accusation game, if I may ask, are you a sock-puppet? I ask because Natural Citizen's latest neg rep leads me to believe that you and he are the same person, or that you like to team up when somebody says something other than what you want to hear.


Don't ever use my name in the third person in such an accusatory way, please. If you have something to say about me, say it to _me_. That's what men do.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Given your rather childish and unprovoked neg rep comment towards me earlier, this little passive-aggressive routine of yours has a bit of trouble passing the smell test. Do watch out for the Calvinists hiding under you bed before going night night.


It's a good thing I don't care what you think, isn't it?

----------


## lilymc

> While we're in the accusation game, if I may ask, are you a sock-puppet? I ask because Natural Citizen's latest neg rep leads me to believe that you and he are the same person, or that you like to team up when somebody says something other than what you want to hear.


Um, no.  We are two different people. lol.    And I had no idea he neg repped you, but I know that he and I agree on this topic, and about the arrogance from those who push this false doctrine.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> And I had no idea he neg repped you, but I know that he and I agree on this topic, and about the arrogance from those who push this false doctrine.


I negged him just because. I disapproved of his post. Not enough room in the little neg rep box to splain why 

Then he negged me back and called me temperance heretic. Heh.

----------


## pcosmar

> Yeah I do have a problem with that.   Paul quoted Epimenides.  Is Epimenides inspired?


Did Paul describe him as a Prophet. "A man who walked with God,, and was not, because God took him,"

No?



> Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones  to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”[





> And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.





> By faith Enoch was taken up so that he did not see death. He could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.


You don't think his writings might be enlightening?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Did Paul describe him as a Prophet. "A man who walked with God,, and was not, because God took him,"
> 
> No?



No.  Because the book of Enoch was not written by Enoch.  It is a first century work. In Enoch 10:2 it says Enoch wrote about Noah, even though the Bible says that Enoch was taken up to heaven years before Noah was born.  It also says the wind comes out of a portal on the east edge of the flat earth.  It contradicts Scripture over and over.

----------


## pcosmar

> No.  Because the book of Enoch was not written by Enoch.  It is a first century work. In Enoch 10:2 it says Enoch wrote about Noah, even though the Bible says that Enoch was taken up to heaven years before Noah was born.  It also says the wind comes out of a portal on the east edge of the flat earth.  It contradicts Scripture over and over.


Tell it to Jude.

It was known as scripture then. and only removed later in a huge act of error.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> According to the Bible it was.



Unless you are a King-James-onlyist, the Bible does not say that his name was ever Lucifer.

Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "shining one." It is used in the KJV in Isaiah 14 as a translation of the Hebrew word that means shining one, and there is no reason for it to be capitalized.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Tell it to Jude.
> 
> It was known as scripture then. and only removed later in a huge act of error.


No it wasn't universally recognized as Scripture.   It is an obvious forgery, and it has dozens of contradictions in it.  It is not inspired Scripture.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> That is an incorrect interpretation of Ezekiel 28.  For one thing it was the king of Tyre, not the prince.  For another, throughout the Bible God uses dual prophecies.  For example when God said in Revelation "Babylon is fallen" and "come out of her my people" he wasn't talking about literal Babylon which had already fallen.  God gave a dual prophecy in Ezekiel, talking about how the king of Tyre but giving attributes that could not have applied to any human.
> 
> 
> 
> The one who sinned from the beginning.
> 
> Eze 28:15
> _15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee._
> 
> ...


Let's say you're right and Ezekiel 28 is talking about an angel, as opposed to using figurative language (like Ezekiel does all throughout the book). How do you know which angel? I don't see any commonality between Ezekiel 28 and John 8:44 or 1 John 3:8. I'm not sure what you're trying to point out there. But if Ezekiel 28 is talking about an angel being cast out of Heaven, then it's also saying that the timing of that is some time after there were already nations on the earth. So it's long after Adam's sin.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Let's say you're right and Ezekiel 28 is talking about an angel, as opposed to using figurative language (like Ezekiel does all throughout the book). How do you know which angel? I don't see any commonality between Ezekiel 28 and John 8:44 or 1 John 3:8. I'm not sure what you're trying to point out there. But if Ezekiel 28 is talking about an angel being cast out of Heaven,* then it's also saying that the timing of that is some time after there were already nations on the earth. So it's long after Adam's sin.*


Excellent point.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> I negged him just because. I disapproved of his post. Not enough room in the little neg rep box to splain why 
> 
> Then he negged me back and called me temperance heretic. Heh.


It's an accurate statement of somebody who consciously refuses to obey scripture on the sacrament of communion, it's a little more specific and substantiated that "just because", though admittedly I used that on lilymc after he/she negged me for the reason of "//".

You two are made for each other, 100% snark and zero substance.




> Um, no.  We are two different people. lol.    And I had no idea he neg repped you, but I know that he and I agree on this topic, and about the arrogance from those who push this false doctrine.


Your accusations of arrogance is an exercise in projection to an extreme bordering on ridiculous, and for two different people, you behave remarkably similar (snarky, unexplained negative rep attacks, likely compensating for something). Either way, the assertion that I am pushing "false doctrine" is not born out by scripture, and the woefully pathetic attempts at certain individuals to refute Sola's point regarding both foreknowledge and predestination are more in line with people who trust their own will more than scripture.

Either way, good luck with your snarky retorts, I hope your sarcasm will sate your ego.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Tell it to Jude.
> 
> It was known as scripture then. and only removed later in a huge act of error.


Paul referenced the writings of heathen Greek poets in the epistles, are we to count them as canon as well?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It's an accurate statement of somebody who consciously refuses to obey scripture on the sacrament of communion, it's a little more specific and substantiated that "just because", though admittedly I used that on lilymc after he/she negged me for the reason of "//".
> 
> You two are made for each other, 100% snark and zero substance.
> 
> 
> 
> Your accusations of arrogance is an exercise in projection to an extreme bordering on ridiculous, and for two different people, you behave remarkably similar (snarky, unexplained negative rep attacks, likely compensating for something). Either way, the assertion that I am pushing "false doctrine" is not born out by scripture, and the woefully pathetic attempts at certain individuals to refute Sola's point regarding both foreknowledge and predestination are more in line with people who trust their own will more than scripture.
> 
> Either way, good luck with your snarky retorts, I hope your sarcasm will sate your ego.


Well that wasn't a very nice thing to say.

----------


## pcosmar

> Paul referenced the writings of heathen Greek poets in the epistles, are we to count them as canon as well?


Paul did not refer to them as Prophets.. Jude DID.

The error was in removing scripture.
and btw.. Some have NEVER REMOVED IT.
It has been part of the Ethiopian Bible.

----------


## jmdrake

> Unless you are a King-James-onlyist, the Bible does not say that his name was ever Lucifer.
> 
> Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "shining one." It is used in the KJV in Isaiah 14 as a translation of the Hebrew word that means shining one, and there is no reason for it to be capitalized.


What are you even arguing about?  Seriously?  It clear that the devil/Satan/"the shining one"/whatever you want to call him was originally an angel in  heaven.  He had other angelic followers.  They got kicked out by Michael.

Here is the NIV since you have some odd prejudice against the KJV.

Revelation 12
_7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him._

----------


## jmdrake

> Let's say you're right and Ezekiel 28 is talking about an angel, as opposed to using figurative language (like Ezekiel does all throughout the book). How do you know which angel? I don't see any commonality between Ezekiel 28 and John 8:44 or 1 John 3:8. I'm not sure what you're trying to point out there. But if Ezekiel 28 is talking about an angel being cast out of Heaven, then it's also saying that the timing of that is some time after there were already nations on the earth. So it's long after Adam's sin.


Good grief.  Did you totally not get the point I made about Babylon?  The Bible talks about literal Babylon and figurative Babylon.  In Ezekiel he was talking about a literal king and how that king could be compared to the angel that led a rebellion in heaven and was kicked out of heaven.

Revelation 12
_7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him._

----------


## jmdrake

> Excellent point.


So you don't believe that the devil was kicked out of heaven either?  What Bible do you read?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> What are you even arguing about?  Seriously?  It clear that the devil/Satan/"the shining one"/whatever you want to call him was originally an angel in  heaven.  He had other angelic followers.  They got kicked out by Michael.


Let's say that's true. It isn't clear to me. But for the sake of argument, say it is. You claimed that Lucifer was his name, and furthermore that the Bible itself said so. Clearly the Bible does not say anything like that.

And even if the person Isaiah 14 is talking about is an angel, and even if that angel's name was Lucifer, how could you possibly know that that fallen angel is the same one who also goes by the title Satan?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Revelation 12
> _7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him._


But that passage is talking about something yet future.

----------


## jmdrake

> But that passage is talking about something yet future.


 Ummmm...no.  It's talking about *past tense*.  "But he *was* not strong enough and the *lost* their place in heaven.  The great dragon *was* hurled down."  But I'm sure @Sola_Fide will say "excellent point" to whatever bit of twisted biblical interpretation it takes for him to somehow think he's right.

----------


## jmdrake

> Let's say that's true. It isn't clear to me. But for the sake of argument, say it is. You claimed that Lucifer was his name, and furthermore that the Bible itself said so. Clearly the Bible does not say anything like that.


If you wish to believe a lie rather than the truth then sobeit.  I do not believe the Bible was written in English so your "The Latin just means light bearer" point is beyond stupid.  The being identified as "light bearer" or "Lucifer" or whatever is the same being that led the rebellion *that already happened* and was mentioned in Revelation 12 and that being and the angels that followed him were cast out of heaven and that being is called, in English, Satan (which means the accuser) and the devil.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> If you wish to believe a lie rather than the truth then sobeit.  I do not believe the Bible was written in English so your "The Latin just means light bearer" point is beyond stupid.  The being identified as "light bearer" or "Lucifer" or whatever is the same being that led the rebellion *that already happened* and was mentioned in Revelation 12 and that being and the angels that followed him were cast out of heaven and that being is called, in English, Satan (which means the accuser) and the devil.


But nowhere in the Bible does it ever say that Satan went by some other name at some point.

The Rebellion in Revelation 12 is yet future.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Ummmm...no.  It's talking about *past tense*.  "But he *was* not strong enough and the *lost* their place in heaven.  The great dragon *was* hurled down."  But I'm sure @Sola_Fide will say "excellent point" to whatever bit of twisted biblical interpretation it takes for him to somehow think he's right.


So? It's past tense. You think that means it happened in the past? It's prophecy. Prophecy is often given in the past tense. Lots of what the Book of Revelation says is going to happen in the future is presented in past tense in that book.

What about the fleeing of the woman into the wilderness. Do you think that already happened too?

The Devil's being cast out of Heaven in Revelation 12 is after his having had access to Heaven to accuse the brethren. These brethren are Christians.

----------


## jmdrake

> So? It's past tense. You think that means it happened in the past? It's prophecy. Prophecy is often given in the past tense. Lots of what the Book of Revelation says is going to happen in the future is presented in past tense in that book.
> 
> What about the fleeing of the woman into the wilderness. Do you think that already happened too?
> 
> The Devil's being cast out of Heaven in Revelation 12 is after his having had access to Heaven to accuse the brethren. These brethren are Christians.


You're merely trolling at this point.  Oh...and I know you're a sock puppet.

----------


## Superfluous Man

I would encourage anyone with questions about Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 to consult any commentaries on the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel written by actual scholars of the Old Testament who understand the Hebrew language and have devoted their lives to the study of the Old Testament. You would be hard pressed to find any who think either passage is talking about Satan. They just interpret the details of those passages that people think must be about Satan as being figurative language, which is common in those books.

Of course they could be wrong. But you shouldn't say, "The Bible says X," when it's really just your interpretation of the Bible that says X.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You're merely trolling at this point.


Because I take a perfectly normal interpretation of Revelation 12?

I notice that you didn't answer my question about the woman fleeing into the wilderness.

----------


## jmdrake

> I would encourage anyone with questions about Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 to consult any commentaries on the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel written by actual scholars of the Old Testament who understand the Hebrew language and have devoted their lives to the study of the Old Testament. You would be hard pressed to find any who think either passage is talking about Satan. They just interpret the details of those passages that people think must be about Satan as being figurative language, which is common in those books.
> 
> Of course they could be wrong. But you shouldn't say, "The Bible says X," when it's really just your interpretation of the Bible that says X.


Uh-huh.  And you're the expert Mr. Sock Puppet.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Uh-huh.  And you're the expert Mr. Sock Puppet.


Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself. It's interesting that you're so dogmatic about this when you haven't yet even done that.

----------


## jmdrake

> Because I take a perfectly normal interpretation of Revelation 12?


Post a commentary that says that the devil has yet to be kicked out of heaven or admit you're just making this up sock puppet.




> I notice that you didn't answer my question about the woman fleeing into the wilderness.


The woman in Bible prophecy represents the church.  And the church has had to flee persecution multiple times.  So yes, that has already happened.  That doesn't mean it won't happen again Mr. sock puppet.

----------


## jmdrake

> Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself.


That's typically what someone says when they make something up that's total bollocks and for which they give no source.  "Go do your research for yourself."  If I didn't know before that you were trolling you just proved it in spades.

----------


## Anti Federalist

YHWH is a troll of galactic proportions.

That is the only explanation for this confusing, contradictory and convoluted cacophony of muddled approaches to eternal salvation. 

Either trolling *or* cruel and unjust, to play with men's souls, and make the path so difficult and incomprehensible.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Post a commentary that says that the devil has yet to be kicked out of heaven or admit you're just making this up sock puppet.
> 
> 
> 
> The woman in Bible prophecy represents the church.  And the church has had to flee persecution multiple times.  So yes, that has already happened.  That doesn't mean it won't happen again Mr. sock puppet.


OK. So the incident of the woman fleeing into the wilderness in Revelation 12 has already happened, in your view, and this was fulfilled at some point in the history of the Church.

Would it be correct to say that you believe this happened at some point in time since Pentecost?

Also, was it already past at the time that Revelation was written? Or was it yet future at that time?

Finally, did this happen before or after the casting out of the Devil from Heaven in v. 9?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Post a commentary that says that the devil has yet to be kicked out of heaven or admit you're just making this up sock puppet.


You mean in Revelation 12, which is what I was talking about in the quote you replied to?

Sure. I just checked Robert Thomas's commentary on Revelation and on page 129 of volume 2 he says "the war [referring to the war in Rev. 12:7] is an end time event."

That was the first one I checked.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> That's typically what someone says when they make something up that's total bollocks and for which they give no source.  "Go do your research for yourself."  If I didn't know before that you were trolling you just proved it in spades.


Great, then go ahead and check it out and it will be easy to prove me wrong. If you live near a university you will be able to find lots of scholarly commentaries in the library.

If you want me to give sources, I can give plenty. I'm not sure if you'll believe me or not.

What I said about Isaiah and Ezekiel commentaries is true of the great majority of them. I could pick almost any as sources. I don't think you would realize how overwhelmingly this is the majority view though without checking for yourself and seeing how hard it will be to find any who think those passages are about Satan.

----------


## jmdrake

> Great, then go ahead and check it out and it will be easy to prove me wrong. If you live near a university you will be able to find lots of scholarly commentaries in the library.
> 
> If you want me to give sources, I can give plenty. I'm not sure if you'll believe me or not.


Oh there are commentaries that say that Jesus was really Krishna as well and that the entire Bible is a myth.  If that's what you believe then fine.

----------


## jmdrake

> OK. So the incident of the woman fleeing into the wilderness in Revelation 12 has already happened, in your view, and this was fulfilled at some point in the history of the Church.
> 
> Would it be correct to say that you believe this happened at some point in time since Pentecost?
> 
> Also, was it already past at the time that Revelation was written? Or was it yet future at that time?
> 
> Finally, did this happen before or after the casting out of the Devil from Heaven in v. 9?


First answer questions about your view.  So you believe the devil was never an angel?  Do you believe the devil was not the first sinner?  What being then do you believe was the first sinner?  Or are you merely trolling, as I suspect you are erowe1?

----------


## RJB

> Do you believe the devil was not the first sinner?  What being then do you believe was the first sinner?


I'm guessing it's God, if he thinks he is the author of sin.



> Or are you merely trolling, as I suspect you are erowe1?


  Come on Eric.  You've got more class then this.  Come back the respectable way.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> So you believe the devil was never an angel?


On the contrary, the Devil always has been and still is an angel.




> Do you believe the devil was not the first sinner?


I accept that the devil was the first sinner. But neither Isaiah 14, nor Ezekiel 28, nor Revelation 12 say anything about that.

----------


## jmdrake

> On the contrary, the Devil always has been and still is an angel.
> 
> 
> I accept that the devil was the first sinner. But neither Isaiah 14, nor Ezekiel 28, nor Revelation 12 say anything about that.


So you agree that my ultimate positing is correct even on both counts even though you claim to disagree with how I got there and you give no explanation for how you reached the same (obviously true) conclusion I did.

/thread cause you're trolling.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> So you agree that my ultimate positing is correct even on both counts even though you claim to disagree with how I got there and you give no explanation for how you reached the same (obviously true) conclusion I did.
> 
> /thread cause you're trolling.


What ultimate positing?

I addressed the OP multiple times before we got into this rabbit trail about Satan's name, which we got onto because you insisted on it.

----------


## jmdrake

> What ultimate positing?







> I addressed the OP multiple times before we got into this rabbit trail about Satan's name, which we got onto because you insisted on it.


Straight up lie but okay.  So what Bible verses do you use to support your view that Satan is a fallen angel and the first sinner?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm guessing it's God, if he thinks he is the author of sin.
> .


God cannot sin.  And God does not sin when He decrees that sin exists.  Why?  Because He has a _good_ reason to decree that sin exists.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Straight up lie but okay.  So what Bible verses do you use to support your view that Satan is a fallen angel and the first sinner?


My posts are there for all to see, beginning on the first page of the thread.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Straight up lie but okay.  So what Bible verses do you use to support your view that Satan is a fallen angel and the first sinner?


Satan is always an angel, all through Scripture. First John says he has been a sinner from the beginning.

----------


## jmdrake

> Satan is always an angel, all through Scripture. First John says he has been a sinner from the beginning.


Ummm....I quoted that verse early in the thread and you argued against its application.  So like I said....straight up lie from you.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Ummm....I quoted that verse early in the thread and you argued against its application.  So like I said....straight up lie from you.


I didn't argue against that. It clearly says Satan has been a sinner from the beginning. I said I didn't see how it related to Ezekiel 28, which makes no explicit mention of Satan, and whoever it is talking about is someone who wasn't a sinner from the beginning.

Again, my posts are still here in the thread for all to see. I haven't lied about anything I have and haven't said here.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Oh there are commentaries that say that Jesus was really Krishna as well and that the entire Bible is a myth.  If that's what you believe then fine.


Right, but in the cases of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, like I said, the view that they are about Satan is a tiny minority view among scholarly commentaries. It's a common view among lay Christians, but not among Old Testament scholars.

And I have never encountered a commentary on any book of the Bible by anyone that says that Jesus was really Krishna. I doubt that any serious scholars of the Bible believe that.

----------


## jmdrake

> I didn't argue against that. It clearly says Satan has been a sinner from the beginning. I said I didn't see how it related to Ezekiel 28, which makes no explicit mention of Satan, and whoever it is talking about is someone who wasn't a sinner from the beginning.
> 
> Again, my posts are still here in the thread for all to see. I haven't lied about anything I have and haven't said here.


You have but if you want to pretend you haven't that's okay.  Like you said, your posts are in this thread and others can see you are lying.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You have but if you want to pretend you haven't that's okay.  Like you said, your posts are in this thread and others can see you are lying.


Feel free to go back and look at what I actually said. You'll see that I haven't lied. I encourage others who might be inclined to believe you to check as well.

ETA: My reply to your quote of First John is in post #103. It's just what I said.

----------


## jmdrake

Here's the proof that you are lying.  You falsely claimed that I was the one insisting on going down the "Lucifer" rabbit hole.  That is you and the record of this thread shows it.  My point, proven by 1 John 3:8 which I quoted early on, is that sin existed before Adam.  Now you are flat wrong in your claim that the Bible doesn't say Lucifer is Satan.  That's your interpretation of the Bible but not what it actually says.  And modern commentators who don't even believe that there is a devil or that Adam and Eve were literally created might go with the idea that the King of Tyre allegory was only about a human king even though it says he was "perfect" in the day he was created.  If you believe the King of Tyre was "perfect" then I have ocean front property in Tennessee to sell you.

But again, your lie is that I was the one that tried to make this all about whether or not Lucifer was Satan's original name when that was a mere side point.  You snipped out 1 John 3:8 from your replies to me and now you're dishonestly trying to pretend you didn't do that.  




> The Bible says that sin entered the world through Adam's sin.





> Right.  But sin existed in the universe before it existed in the world.  (1 John 3:8)





> According to the Bible it was.  If you wish to make up a false claim like that at least attempt to point to a Bible verse that supports your position.  
> 
> 
> 
> So you are simply destroying your own argument further.  You said that God never had a father/son relationship with Lucifer.  Now you're saying it exists even after Lucifer became Satan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Unless you are a King-James-onlyist, the Bible does not say that his name was ever Lucifer.
> 
> Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "shining one." It is used in the KJV in Isaiah 14 as a translation of the Hebrew word that means shining one, and there is no reason for it to be capitalized.





> Feel free to go back and look at what I actually said. You'll see that I haven't lied. I encourage others who might be inclined to believe you to check as well.
> 
> ETA: My reply to your quote of First John is in post #103. It's just what I said.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Here's the proof that you are lying.  You falsely claimed that I was the one insisting on going down the "Lucifer" rabbit hole.  That is you and the record of this thread shows it.  My point, proven by 1 John 3:8 which I quoted early on, is that sin existed before Adam.  Now you are flat wrong in your claim that the Bible doesn't say Lucifer is Satan.  That's your interpretation of the Bible but not what it actually says.  And modern commentators who don't even believe that there is a devil or that Adam and Eve were literally created might go with the idea that the King of Tyre allegory was only about a human king even though it says he was "perfect" in the day he was created.  If you believe the King of Tyre was "perfect" then I have ocean front property in Tennessee to sell you.
> 
> But again, your lie is that I was the one that tried to make this all about whether or not Lucifer was Satan's original name when that was a mere side point.  You snipped out 1 John 3:8 from your replies to me and now you're dishonestly trying to pretend you didn't do that.


I notice that in your quotes from me you neglect to include your own words from post #38 and my reply to it in #41.

When I referred to the Bible saying that sin entered the world through Adam, that was in reply to a comment made by someone else, and it was a perfectly relevant reply to what they said.

----------


## jmdrake

> I notice that in your quotes from me you neglect to include your own words from post #38.


Feel free to copy and paste them your own damn self dude.  I've proven you a liar in spades.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You snipped out 1 John 3:8 from your replies to me


I don't know what you mean by that.

The only thing you said about 1 John 3:8 that I disagreed with was that it had any bearing on Ezekiel 28.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Feel free to copy and paste them your own damn self dude.  I've proven you a liar in spades.


I don't see a need to copy and paste them. Anyone can see them.

I don't see how you think you proved I lied. I didn't lie.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Now you are flat wrong in your claim that the Bible doesn't say Lucifer is Satan.  That's your interpretation of the Bible but not what it actually says.


But you won't admit that when you say that the Bible does say that Lucifer is Satan, that's just your interpretation of the Bible and not what it actually says?

Because it's a simple fact that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Lucifer is Satan.

Also, when I talked about scholarly commentaries I wasn't just talking about commentaries just from liberal scholars, but also evangelicals, and practically every other theological stripe (possibly not including Seventh Day Adventists, I honestly don't know about them). I find it interesting that earlier your angle was to cast doubt on what I said about what the overwhelming majority of Old Testament scholars think, and now you're shifting to saying that you don't care what they think because of their theology being different than yours. Am I right that you took me up on my challenge and were disappointed to discover that what I said turned out to be true?

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't see a need to copy and paste them. Anyone can see them.


Right.  And they can see you lied.

----------


## jmdrake

> But you won't admit that when you say that the Bible does say that Lucifer is Satan, that's just your interpretation of the Bible and not what it actually says?
> 
> Because it's a simple fact that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Lucifer is Satan.


Right.  Because the Bible says a human king was perfect in the day that he was created and that he was a covering cherub.  Do you actually believe that?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Right.  Because the Bible says a human king was perfect in the day that he was created and that he was a covering cherub.  Do you actually believe that?


First of all, the passage you're talking about that mentions someone being perfect and being a covering cherub (Ezekiel 28) makes no mention of Lucifer (which is in Isaiah 14).

Second of all, let's take both of those things literally. That still isn't the same thing as the passage actually saying that it was Satan.

So you have a perfect being who was a cherub who sinned. In order to get from that to Satan you have to take some other steps. Satan isn't the only angel who ever sinned, after all. And every hint in Ezekiel 28 about the timing of this being's punishment places it at a point in history when sin already existed on the earth. Nothing in the passage suggests that the sin of this being is the first sin of anyone ever.

It's odd to me that you honestly think that when you take those steps you're actually simply saying what the Bible itself says, rather than your interpretation of it.

As I said, it is a simple fact (and frankly, an undeniable one), that nowhere in Scripture does it actually say that Lucifer is Satan. Maybe he is. But for you to say that my view is just an interpretation and not what the Bible actually says, and not to admit that the same is true of your view, is mistaken.

----------


## jmdrake

> First of all, the passage you're talking about that mentions someone being perfect and being a covering cherub (Ezekiel 28) makes no mention of Lucifer (which is in Isaiah 14).
> 
> Second of all, let's take both of those things literally. That still isn't the same thing as the passage actually saying that it was Satan.
> 
> So you have a perfect being who was a cherub who sinned. In order to get from that to Satan you have to take some other steps. Satan isn't the only angel who ever sinned, after all. And every hint in Ezekiel 28 about the timing of this being's punishment places it at a point in history when sin already existed on the earth. Nothing in the passage suggests that the sin of this being is the first sin of anyone ever.
> 
> It's odd to me that you honestly think that when you take those steps you're actually simply saying what the Bible itself says, rather than your interpretation of it.
> 
> As I said, it is a simple fact (and frankly, an undeniable one), that nowhere in Scripture does it actually say that Lucifer is Satan. Maybe he is. But for you to say that my view is just an interpretation and not what the Bible actually says, and not to admit that the same is true of your view, is mistaken.


Of course Satan isn't the only angel to have sinned.  He was just the first (according to you anyway).  With him being the first he wasn't tempted into sin.  He was perfect until sin was "found in him."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Of course Satan isn't the only angel to have sinned.  He was just the first (according to you anyway).  With him being the first he wasn't tempted into sin.  He was perfect until sin was "found in him."


God created everything...and He knew every possible world he could have created and every possible outcome, yet He chose this one.

It is impossible to separate God's omniscience from His omnipotence logically.

Bringing up Lucifer and Satan and Adam and will and so on doesn't do anything to get you out of the dilemma.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Of course Satan isn't the only angel to have sinned.  He was just the first (according to you anyway).  With him being the first he wasn't tempted into sin.  He was perfect until sin was "found in him."


He's not the only angel who was perfect until sin was found in him.

Again, you may be right to interpret Ezekiel 28 to be talking about the same being who is called a shining one (translated by KVJ as Lucifer) in Isaiah 14, and that this being is Satan, even though neither passage ever says that it is Satan, and none of the things they do say are things that any other passages of Scripture indicate can only be true of Satan and no one else.

But at the end of the day, that is your interpretation of the Bible. It's not something the Bible ever says.

ETA: Honestly, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Satan and some other angels sinned at the same time, rather than him first all by himself and then others later. Nor would I rule out the possibility that some other angels remained sinless long after that and became sinful much later in human history. The Bible simply doesn't address all of these questions. If Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are talking about angels, and not just using figurative language about human beings (like the Bible does very often), I can't see anything in them that narrows down which angel either of them is talking about, or when that sin happened, other there being details in both passages that suggest the sin they're talking about wasn't the first sin ever.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> God created everything...and He knew every possible world he could have created and every possible outcome, yet He chose this one.
> 
> It is impossible to separate God's omniscience from His omnipotence logically.
> 
> Bringing up Lucifer and Satan and Adam and will and so on doesn't do anything to get you out of the dilemma.


Exactly true.

Even if you bring in the idea of free will, God could have created a world with beings having free will of which he knew they were never going to choose to sin. But God chose to make this world with the beings in it which he knew were going to choose to sin. Their sinning was part of God's plan all along.

----------


## jmdrake

> He's not the only angel sin has ever been found in.


He was the only one that wasn't tempted.

----------


## jmdrake

> God created everything...and He knew every possible world he could have created and every possible outcome, yet He chose this one.


Where in the Bible does it say that only one reality exists?  Hint...*it doesn't*!  You and your buddy whom I will not name want to force everyone to "prove" what logically flows from the Bible that Lucifer is Satan and yet you take liberties with things that the Bible actually does not say.

----------


## jmdrake

> Exactly true.


Please quote from me in the Bible where it says that only one reality exists.  Thanks in advance.  You'll have an easier time proving that the world is flat.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Exactly true.
> 
> Even if you bring in the idea of free will, God could have created a world with beings having free will of which he knew they were never going to choose to sin. But God chose to make this world with the beings in it which he knew were going to choose to sin. *Their sinning was part of God's plan all along*.


Exactly.  And what is perplexing to me is why this doesn't bring comfort and peace to a person who says they are a Christian!  I mean, God is in control...of everything!  He has a PURPOSE for the evil that is in this world.  To me, that is a comfort!   

There is nothing more bleak than the unbiblical idea of purposeless evil.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Please quote from me in the Bible where it says that only one reality exists.  Thanks in advance.  You'll have an easier time proving that the world is flat.


I can't.

But doesn't that follow from the definition of "exist"? If something exists, it is real. All that is real is part of reality. The totality of all these things that are real and that do exist is ultimately all one reality by definition. There can't be anything that exists that is outside of the reality of everything that exists.

How does that relate to anything I said though?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Where in the Bible does it say that only one reality exists?  Hint...*it doesn't*!  You and your buddy whom I will not name want to force everyone to "prove" what logically flows from the Bible that Lucifer is Satan and yet you take liberties with things that the Bible actually does not say.


What on earth do you mean by that???  There are multiple realities?  Where do you get that from?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Where in the Bible does it say that only one reality exists?  Hint...*it doesn't*!  You and your buddy whom I will not name want to force everyone to "prove" what logically flows from the Bible that Lucifer is Satan and yet you take liberties with things that the Bible actually does not say.


I don't want you to prove it.

I just don't think it's very honest of you to tell me that when I challenge the view that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are about Satan that I'm just giving my interpretation, rather than what the Bible actually says, but then you won't admit that your view is just your interpretation. Somehow when it comes to your interpretation, you're simply saying what the Bible itself says, even though it never actually says it.

----------


## jmdrake

> I can't.
> 
> But doesn't that follow from the definition of "exist"? If something exists, it is real. All that is real is part of reality. The totality of all these things that are real and that do exist is ultimately all one reality by definition.
> 
> How does that relate to anything I said though?


You agreed with Sola_Fide and it has *everything* to do with what *he* said.  Again quoting SF.




> God created everything...and *He knew every possible world he could have created and every possible outcome, yet He chose this one.*
> 
> It is impossible to separate God's omniscience from His omnipotence logically.
> 
> Bringing up Lucifer and Satan and Adam and will and so on doesn't do anything to get you out of the dilemma.


Now if an infinite number of alternate realities exist then there is no dilemma to get out of.  Real free will can (and I believe does) exist when one quantum mechanics and the multiverse.  I've explained that to Sola_Fide before and he never has a comeback other than "Where is that in the Bible?"  But it's not *not* in the Bible.  Nor is Sola_Fide's assertion that God chose "this" reality, as opposed to allowing an infinite number of realities, anywhere in the Bible.  Point, set, match.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't want you to prove it.
> 
> I just don't think it's very honest of you to tell me that when I challenge the view that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are about Satan that I'm just giving my interpretation, rather than what the Bible actually says, but then you won't admit that your view is just your interpretation. Somehow when it comes to your interpretation, you're simply saying what the Bible itself says, even though it never actually says it.


S_M, I've already had you contradicting and moving the goalpost through this thread.  And no, I won't post your own words again if you don't want to live up to them.  First you are talking about how that had to be talking about some earthly king.  Then you admit that it was likely talking about an angel.  Then you admit Satan was the first sinner.  And all along you've been playing an obfuscation game to avoid a basic truth that destroys your pseudo Calvinism.

----------


## jmdrake

> What on earth do you mean by that???  There are multiple realities?  Where do you get that from?


I get that from the same place that I get that the earth is actually a sphere.  It's called science.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say that there is only one reality just like nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth is the center of the universe.  Christians (many anyway) once believed that and I suppose you believe there is only one reality.  But the Bible doesn't teach you that.   And don't be shocked.  We've talked about this before.  Sometimes I seriously wonder if you have Alzheimer's.  I'm not trying to be mean.  But you have a serious problem remembering what we already talked about multiple times years ago.  You may want to get that checked out.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You agreed with Sola_Fide and it has *everything* to do with what *he* said.  Again quoting SF.
> 
> 
> 
> Now if an infinite number of alternate realities exist then there is no dilemma to get out of.  Real free will can (and I believe does) exist when one quantum mechanics and the multiverse.  I've explained that to Sola_Fide before and he never has a comeback other than "Where is that in the Bible?"  But it's not *not* in the Bible.  Nor is Sola_Fide's assertion that God chose "this" reality, as opposed to allowing an infinite number of realities, anywhere in the Bible.  Point, set, match.


Oh boy.... there's the point set match thing again.  Ughhh...cringe inducing....

Anyway, if an infinite number of realities exist, then a reality would exist where God doesn't exist, and that cannot be.  Right?

----------


## jmdrake

> Oh boy.... there's the point set match thing again.  Ughhh...cringe inducing....


You say things that cause myself and others to cringe as well so suck it up.




> Anyway, if an infinite number of realities exist, then a reality would exist where God doesn't exist, and that cannot be.  Right?


Not if God exists outside all possible realities.  And I didn't say all realities are possible and exist.  I said an infinite number of realities exist.  Is infinity a concept that you have trouble grasping?  Think of it this way.  There are an infinite number of whole numbers.  But the set of whole numbers, which is an infinite set, does not contain all numbers.  Infinite != all.  Understand?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You say things that cause myself and others to cringe as well so suck it up.
> 
> 
> 
> Not if God exists outside all possible realities.  And I didn't say all realities are possible and exist.  I said an infinite number of realities exist.  Is infinity a concept that you have trouble grasping?  Think of it this way.  There are an infinite number of whole numbers.  But the set of whole numbers, which is an infinite set, does not contain all numbers.  Infinite != all.  Understand?


If an infinite number of realities exist, then a reality exists where man didn't fall and Jesus didn't redeem the elect.

But the Bible says the cross was predestined before the beginning of time.  So how could that be, jmdrake?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Now if an infinite number of alternate realities exist then there is no dilemma to get out of.  Real free will can (and I believe does) exist when one quantum mechanics and the multiverse.  I've explained that to Sola_Fide before and he never has a comeback other than "Where is that in the Bible?"  But it's not *not* in the Bible.  Nor is Sola_Fide's assertion that God chose "this" reality, as opposed to allowing an infinite number of realities, anywhere in the Bible.  Point, set, match.


I still don't see how this relates to what he said or resolves anything.

You seem to be using the word "reality" equivocally. Is reality what actually does exist or what does not exist?

The proper way to use the word is that reality is what does exist (i.e. reality is what is real). An alternate reality might be what does not exist. But if something does exist, then it is part of actual reality.

The actual reality that does exist includes sin. God could have created reality (meaning all of what exists) such that nobody would ever choose to sin. But he chose to create the one reality that does exist in which people chose to sin.

There is no such thing as an actual reality where nobody ever sins, since reality includes all that exists and there do exist beings who sin.

----------


## jmdrake

> If an infinite number of realities exist, then a reality exists where man didn't fall and Jesus didn't redeem the elect.
> 
> 
> But the Bible says the cross was predestined before the beginning of time. So how could that be, jmdrake?


*facepalm*  Did you fail basic math?  Let me explain it to you again.  There are an infinite number of whole numbers.  But 2.5 is not a whole number.  Similarly there can be an infinite number of realities existing without there being a reality where man didn't fall and Jesus didn't die to redeem man.  On the other hand, the Bible that we are reading in this reality might only be applicable to *this* reality.  We (those of us who aren't flat earthers) discovered hundreds of years ago that we are not actually the center of the universe and the sun does not actually move around the earth but that the earth moves around the sun.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *facepalm*  Did you fail basic math?  Let me explain it to you again.  There are an infinite number of whole numbers.  But 2.5 is not a whole number.  Similarly there can be an infinite number of realities existing without there being a reality where man didn't fall and Jesus didn't die to redeem man.  On the other hand, the Bible that we are reading in this reality might only be applicable to *this* reality.  We (those of us who aren't flat earthers) discovered hundreds of years ago that we are not actually the center of the universe and the sun does not actually move around the earth but that the earth moves around the sun.


What other reality exists then?

Also, as SM just pointed out, you are not using the term "reality" correctly.  Please respond to that post.

----------


## jmdrake

> What other reality exists then?


Only God and beings in other realities know that.




> Also, as SM just pointed out, you are not using the term "reality" correctly.  Please respond to that post.


Wrong.  You and SM are complete idiots when it comes to understanding infinity, realities, quantum mechanics and basic mathematics.  I will not dumb my language down to your level.

----------

