Limited Revealation

[Lees]

Would that include Paul/Saul seeing he also was a Pharisee prior to his conversion?

Just because one was a Pharisee did not make him of the devil.

Again, we can know the truth of this, but we cannot know who is who when we see or meet people in the world. That is knowledge only God has.

And Jesus being the God/Man would know also. Thus when He addressed some as of the devil, that is because they were and He knew it. The same with the elect. We can know there are the elect and those not elect. But it is not given us to be able to determine who is who.

Lees

 

[prism]

Of that I do not know for certain. It is held by many that (Gen. 6:1-2) speaks of sexual intercourse between angels and women which was an angelic intrusion into the human race. So the idea should not be as far fetched as it first appears.

I believe something occurred at the fall that introduced another seed line into Adam's race. (Gen. 3:15) And at the beginning that seed line was clearly distinct with Cains line identified in (Gen. 4:16-24) and described in very worldly terms and boasting of murders.

Then compare that to Seth who is described as "another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew." (Gen. 4:25) And when Seth had a son, Enos, we are told, "then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." (4:26)

In other words, why did it not say "another son instead of Abel whom Cain slew"? Answer: because the seed line was the purpose, not just another son.

Lees

Genesis 4:1 NASB95
Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD."

Cain was a product of sexual relations between Adam and Eve, not satan and Eve.

 

[Lees]

Genesis 4:1 NASB95
Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD."

Cain was a product of sexual relations between Adam and Eve, not satan and Eve.

Satan's seed would have already been introduced...somehow. We know Adam was of God. (Luke 3:38) Jacob and Esau were a product of sexual relations between Isaac and Rebekah. God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were even born. (Rom. 9:10-13) Why? Because He knew who they were. Who they were of.

That Cain was a product of Adam and Eve proves nothing. The distinction I am making is 'of God' or 'of Satan'. This being the two seed lines introduced in (Gen. 3:15). "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Abel was the Godly seed. For we are told in (Gen. 4:25) that Seth is 'another seed instead of Abel'. And you can trace that seed line of Seth all the way to Christ. In other words, that seed had to travel through the various generations of people to get to Christ. And you can see the warfare of Satan trying to destroy that line throughout Scripture. And at one time only one male child was left of the royal seed whom God protected after Athaliah killed the rest. (2 Kings 11:1-3)

Just like that seed of God travelled through the generations of man , so also the seed of Satan would travel through the generations of man and will one day culminate in that 'man of sin'. (2 Thess. 2:3) And that seed had to be introduced into the human race, somehow. The seed of God was already introduced because Adam was of God. (Luke 3:38)

As I said, I don't know with certainity how it happened. I just know something happened to introduce Satan's seed into the human race. If it was of sexual intercourse, it doesn't bother me, as I said earlier concerning (Gen. 6), as you see the possibility of that again. And if it was introduced another way, that is fine also. I just don't know how it was.

Lees

 

[prism]

As I said, I don't know with certainity how it happened. I just know something happened to introduce Satan's seed into the human race. If it was of sexual intercourse, it doesn't bother me, as I said earlier concerning (Gen. 6), as you see the possibility of that again. And if it was introduced another way, that is fine also. I just don't know how it was.

Obviously it wasn't sexual/physical intercourse with satan and Eve. because Genesis says otherwise...

Genesis 4:1 (KJV) And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

What happened was that A&E obeyed satan and became satan's subject, taking on his nature. Only by God's grace through Jesus Christ granting us the new birth do we receive a new nature unlike satan's.

 

[Lees]

Obviously it wasn't sexual/physical intercourse with satan and Eve. because Genesis says otherwise...

Genesis 4:1 (KJV) And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

What happened was that A&E obeyed satan and became satan's subject, taking on his nature. Only by God's grace through Jesus Christ granting us the new birth do we receive a new nature unlike satan's.

No. Adam and Eve did not take on Satan's nature. They took on a fallen nature but not Satan's. Your assuming all born of Adam and Eve have Satan's nature. And that is not true.

No, (Genesis) does not say otherwise concerning how Cain became 'of Satan'. Just because he was born of Adam and Eve means nothing, as I explained in post #(43), which you pathetically ignored. How does one become a child of Satan or a child of God, is what I am saying.

And by your 'assumptions' every believer in the Old Testament was of Satan, and died still being of Satan, because they were never born-again. No one was born-again till Pentecost. Now what?

And, Eve was mistaken about having gotten a man from the LORD. (Gen. 4:1) She no doubt believed he was, and that he would fulfill the promise given in (Gen. 3:15). But he wasn't. He was of 'that wicked one', Satan. (1 John 3:12)

If you don't like the possibility of sexual intercourse to produce Satan's seed in the human race, that's fine. You don't have to. Myself, as I said, I don't know. It doesn't bother me if it was or if it wasn't. But there had to be some way. And your explanation leads only to more questions, and certainly no answers. Which is, as you said before, how you like it.

You have not addressed what I said concerning the 'seed line'. Why not? Did God's seed travel through the line of Seth to Christ or not? Were Seth and his line ever called the children of Satan?

Lees

 

[prism]

No. Adam and Eve did not take on Satan's nature. They took on a fallen nature but not Satan's. Your assuming all born of Adam and Eve have Satan's nature. And that is not true.

Scripture please

No, (Genesis) does not say otherwise concerning how Cain became 'of Satan'. Just because he was born of Adam and Eve means nothing, as I explained in post #(43), which you pathetically ignored. How does one become a child of Satan or a child of God, is what I am saying.

Scripture please.

And by your 'assumptions' every believer in the Old Testament was of Satan, and died still being of Satan, because they were never born-again. No one was born-again till Pentecost. Now what?

Scripture proving OT believers were born again please.

And, Eve was mistaken about having gotten a man from the LORD. (Gen. 4:1) She no doubt believed he was, and that he would fulfill the promise given in (Gen. 3:15). But he wasn't. He was of 'that wicked one', Satan. (1 John 3:12)

Perhaps she assumed she had gotten a man from the Lord. Yes, he was of the wicked one (same nature) but Cain was a product of sexual union between Adam & Eve.

If you don't like the possibility of sexual intercourse to produce Satan's seed in the human race, that's fine. You don't have to. Myself, as I said, I don't know. It doesn't bother me if it was or if it wasn't. But there had to be some way. And your explanation leads only to more questions, and certainly no answers. Which is, as you said before, how you like it.

It isn't about my likes/dislikes; it's what does God's Word says.

You have not addressed what I said concerning the 'seed line'. Why not? Did God's seed travel through the line of Seth to Christ or not? Were Seth and his line ever called the children of Satan?

Christ was born of a virgin, sinless.

 

[Lees]

Scripture please

Scripture please.

Scripture proving OT believers were born again please.

Perhaps she assumed she had gotten a man from the Lord. Yes, he was of the wicked one (same nature) but Cain was a product of sexual union between Adam & Eve.

It isn't about my likes/dislikes; it's what does God's Word says.

Christ was born of a virgin, sinless.

I have given Scripture and explanation in posts # (34), (40), and (43). The majority of which you ignore. And it is you who provide no Scripture showing Cain was of Satan because he was born of Adam and Eve.

What do you mean 'Scripture please'? It is the lack of Scripture on your part that is in question. (Genesis) does not say how Cain became a child of the devil. Scripture please. As (Gen. 4:1) says nothing except that Cain was born of Adam and Eve.

I didn't say Old Testament believers were born-again. I said they were 'not' born-again. Give me Scripture showing Old Testament believers were born-again. The New Birth was a promise in the Old Testament. (Jer. 31:33) (Ezekiel 36:26-27) (Joel 2:28) Made possible only by the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:1) (Acts 2:16) Thus no Old Testament beleivers were 'born-again'.

Which means, according to you, that all Old Testament saints died still being children of Satan, as you claim we are children of Satan because we are born of Adam and Eve, and don't cease to be till we are born-again. So, please explain with Scripture.

Yes, Cain was of the wicked one, the Devil. (1 John 3:12) Yes, Cain had his fathers, Satan, nature. Yes, Cain was born of Adam and Eve. But, as I have explained, being born of Adam and Eve doesn't make one a child of the devil. That is you who say that, without the support of Scripture.

It is all about your likes and dislikes. You provide no Scripture to prove otherwise.

That Christ was born of a virgin does not address my question to you. Please address my statements and questions to you concerning the 'seed line' of both God and Satan, which I presented to you with Scripture. See again posts #(34), (40), (43). Please provide Scripture.

Lees

 

[prism]

…

 

[prism]

I have given Scripture and explanation in posts # (34), (40), and (43). The majority of which you ignore. And it is you who provide no Scripture showing Cain was of Satan because he was born of Adam and Eve.

What do you mean 'Scripture please'? It is the lack of Scripture on your part that is in question. (Genesis) does not say how Cain became a child of the devil. Scripture please. As (Gen. 4:1) says nothing except that Cain was born of Adam and Eve.

I didn't say Old Testament believers were born-again. I said they were 'not' born-again. Give me Scripture showing Old Testament believers were born-again. The New Birth was a promise in the Old Testament. (Jer. 31:33) (Ezekiel 36:26-27) (Joel 2:28) Made possible only by the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:1) (Acts 2:16) Thus no Old Testament beleivers were 'born-again'.

Which means, according to you, that all Old Testament saints died still being children of Satan, as you claim we are children of Satan because we are born of Adam and Eve, and don't cease to be till we are born-again. So, please explain with Scripture.

Yes, Cain was of the wicked one, the Devil. (1 John 3:12) Yes, Cain had his fathers, Satan, nature. Yes, Cain was born of Adam and Eve. But, as I have explained, being born of Adam and Eve doesn't make one a child of the devil. That is you who say that, without the support of Scripture.

It is all about your likes and dislikes. You provide no Scripture to prove otherwise.

That Christ was born of a virgin does not address my question to you. Please address my statements and questions to you concerning the 'seed line' of both God and Satan, which I presented to you with Scripture. See again posts #(34), (40), (43). Please provide Scripture.

Lees

Ok, let's start over, I'll ignore you and you ignore me, deal?
Obviously, we don't agree on this issue.

 

[BruceLeiter]

If God desires all to be saved why does He reveal truths to only some?

Matthew 13:10-11 NASB95
And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" [11] Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.

Because unbelievers will often ridicule any mention of mysteries, and then believers who are listening might get distracted, I think.

 

[BruceLeiter]

Everyone gets born with a sinful nature but a baby can't sin yet. They're just not capable of sinning.
I don't know if they are and I have no idea how that can be. I know that text that an enemy did that, but what did the enemy do? Sow false teaching while the church slept and create tares like that or take for instance the ac, I don't think that with great nurture and christian influence he would turn out better. I have no idea.

How do you know that babies aren't sinful? Our four babies were all born self-centered by wanting to be the center of adults' attention, and self-centeredness is the Bible's definition of sin, I believe.

 

[BruceLeiter]

But is a child of wrath the same as a child of satan or being of the wicked one? That language is used for extreme examples.

A child of wrath is under God the Father's guilty verdict as everyone's divine Judge and Creator. It is his wrath against sin that brings such a verdict on the human race because of Adam's sinful rebellion, which we all engage in until Jesus rescues us.

 

[BruceLeiter]

Let's just face it, folks. There are mysteries about God that the Bible does not solve:
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[prism]

Because unbelievers will often ridicule any mention of mysteries, and then believers who are listening might get distracted, I think.

Do they ridicule because they are unbelievers, or are they counted as unbelievers because they ridicule?

 

[prism]

It's not a matter of some people being saved while others are not eligible. Rather, it's about the readiness of different groups to hear of the truths Jesus had to reveal.

Was Saul ready to hear the truths of Jesus on his way to Damascus...

Acts 9:1 (KJV) And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

Acts 22:5 (KJV) As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.

1 Timothy 1:13 (KJV) Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.