Why is this diversity not worrying Christians?

[SetFree]

How can I believe something if I don't even understand it? What exactly does it mean that Jesus defeated satan through His death and resurrection? Why was it necessary for Him to die and resurrect? He is all-powerful. He could have easily spoken satan out of existence.

If you got to the end of my previous post, I brought up the subject of the 'actual' original sin that brought in the idea of 'death'. It was by Satan when he originally rebelled against God. That actually is when 'sin' entered in, not with Adam and Eve, but by Satan originally. And thus 'death' which is the result of sin then also entered in, because of Satan's sin of old in coveting God's throne.

The Ezekiel 28 chapter speaking of the flesh prince and king of Tyrus (means 'rock) is actually a parable, because it states the king of Tyrus had been in Eden, the Garden of God.

But we know for sure no FLESH king has ever been in God's Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve, and that old serpent (Satan) were, but not the flesh king or flesh prince of Tyrus. Also, Ezekiel 28:14 calls that king of Tyrus the "anointed cherub that covereth". A cherub is a Heavenly order being, not a flesh being, so there again is proof that God is not really speaking there about a flesh king of Tyrus, but about Satan himself when He originally created him 'perfect in thy ways' before he rebelled (Ezekiel 28:15).

This means Satan was originally created 'good', and he followed God originally, even at God's throne and His Altar, until he rebelled in wanting to be GOD and sit on God's throne for himself.

That must... be understood first, before properly understanding the Hebrews 2:14-15 and 1 John 3:8 Scriptures. And because God put that understanding in parable form in Ezekiel 28 about Satan, it means what? It means He did not give that for just anyone to understand, but only for those in Christ Jesus, His Church, same with Christ's parable of the tares of the field, and many other parables.

And, if satan is defeated, why does the Bible warn us against satan roaming around like a lion, trying to devour people? How can a defeated being do any roaming around and devouring?

Our Heavenly Father and His Son is using... Satan as a punishing rod upon the rebellious and the haughty. Satan cannot just do whatever he wants. In Isaiah 10, God is pointing to Satan again using "the Assyrian" title, which was really a flesh king of Assyria back in history. This parable type usage of that title "the Assyrian" is really shown in Scripture like this...

Isa 30:30-33
30 And the LORD shall cause His glorious voice to be heard, and shall shew the lighting down of His arm, with the indignation of His anger, and with the flame of a devouring fire, with scattering, and tempest, and hailstones.

31 For through the voice of the LORD shall the Assyrian be beaten down, which smote with a rod.

32 And in every place where the grounded staff shall pass, which the LORD shall lay upon him, it shall be with tabrets and harps: and in battles of shaking will He fight with it.

33 For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; He hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it.
KJV

Verse 30 -- about God's consuming fire on the last day of this present world when Jesus returns.

Verse 31 -- God used "the Assyrian" to point to Satan, shown further down.

Verse 32 -- more about Christ's defeat of Satan when Jesus returns.

Verse 33 -- God pointing to the Valley of Tophet, a perpetual burning garbage pit outside Jerusalem that Lord Jesus used as an expression for the future "lake of fire". This is God pronouncing Satan's eventual destruction in the "lake of fire". And we know for certain that NO FLESH MAN has been judged and sentenced to that future "lake of fire" yet. Only... Satan and his angels to this day have already been judged and sentenced to perish in that future "lake of fire" (i.e., Tophet). But God is talking there about "the Assyrian", right? Yeah, but using that tile to instead point... to Satan, and not to the flesh king of Assyria.

That's enough to consider for this part. I'll continue in the next post.

 

[SetFree]

And how come people still die and nothing seems to have changed after Jesus died and resurrected? There's no global peace, no knowledge of God in every person, like the Old Testament prophesied.

Have you understood that God is 'using'... Satan upon the rebellious today? Just as you said, not everyone on earth today believes on The Savior Jesus Christ and what He did on His cross for those who believe on Him and The Father. Instead, many are following their flesh, and the ways of the devil, because the devil and his servants are still here to deceive the world... IF... a person denies Christ and His Word.

God has actually explained in His Word how this world got to how it is today, and also just when He is going to destroy it by His "consuming fire" (2 Peter 3:10-13; Hebrews 12). The more we study and stay in His Word and believe it as written, and pray for understanding, the more He will show us. But be prepared, because His Word contains a lot of bitter parts too, as even Apostle John was warned of in Revelation 10:8-11.

This present world is 'given' for Satan to reign over. Some may have a problem with that idea, but it is actually what Lord Jesus showed in Luke 4 when at the start of His Ministry He was tempted by Satan. Satan took Lord Jesus up on a high mountain and said the following to Him...

Luke 4:5-7
5 And the devil, taking Him up into an high mountain, shewed unto Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

6 And the devil said unto Him, "All this power will I give Thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

7 If Thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be Thine."
KJV

God has given Satan to reign over this 'present world'. Lord Jesus won't reign over the wicked in this present world until He returns to sit upon David's throne on earth.

We have Christ's Kingdom today only through The Spirit for this present world. Like Jesus said in John 18:36, "... My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered up to the Jews...".

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Why would an omnibenevolent God allow a being who has only sought to steal, kill and destroy from the beginning (satan) to rule over anyone? That, to me, invokes the image of a king who allows his enemy to terrorize his people in order to test their loyalty. And if they are not loyal, they will be tortured for eternity along with his enemy. Such a being is incompatible with our current definition of omnibenevolence.

 

[Lees]

Why would an omnibenevolent God allow a being who has only sought to steal, kill and destroy from the beginning (satan) to rule over anyone? That, to me, invokes the image of a king who allows his enemy to terrorize his people in order to test their loyalty. And if they are not loyal, they will be tortured for eternity along with his enemy. Such a being is incompatible with our current definition of omnibenevolence.

Because it served His purpose...which is always good.

Doesn't really matter what kind of image it invokes to you. Your 'image' has no authority or power whatsoever.

So what? You are incompatible with God. OK. By your own words.

Lees

 

[Albion]

Lucian Hobodoc said: Why would an omnibenevolent God allow a being who has only sought to steal, kill and destroy from the beginning (satan) to rule over anyone? That, to me, invokes the image of a king who allows his enemy to terrorize his people in order to test their loyalty. And if they are not loyal, they will be tortured for eternity along with his enemy. Such a being is incompatible with our current definition of omnibenevolence.

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with the point Lees made.

We know about God what we have been given to know. We do not know everything in the universe or everything that is about God or his intentions. For that matter, we are not capable of understanding how and why God does everything he does.

In the next life, much that we in our present fallen state cannot grasp will be made evident, but for the moment, we have been given what God intended for us to know in this life in order that we may fulfill his intentions for us in the present.

If none of it persuades you, or if the Bible has not been accepted as authoritative, it probably would be better to take future questions to some other forum.

Here on this one, a "Christian Only" site, posters can presume that there already exists a basic level of acceptance of the Christian religion on the part of inquirers and other participants which respondents can build on when trying to clarify some doctrinal issue. This isn't the place for demanding an answer to "How do we know which way is up?" or the like.

 

[SetFree]

Why would an omnibenevolent God allow a being who has only sought to steal, kill and destroy from the beginning (satan) to rule over anyone? That, to me, invokes the image of a king who allows his enemy to terrorize his people in order to test their loyalty. And if they are not loyal, they will be tortured for eternity along with his enemy. Such a being is incompatible with our current definition of omnibenevolence.

It is because God brought this 'present' world to determine who wants to be with Him and His Son for the future Eternity, and who does not.

Judg 2:20-22
20 And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel; and He said, 'Because that this people hath transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and have not hearkened unto My voice;

21 I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them of the nations which Joshua left when he died:

22 That through them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not.
KJV

 

[SetFree]

Did satan choose to covet God's throne or did the desire appear in him out of nowhere and he just didn't fight it? Like, I'm genuinely trying to understand how this works. When an evil desire appears in a human, we say that either our fallen nature or demons planted that evil seed, that desire, and the human chose to nurture it, to obey it, to feed it.

God gave us and the angels, even Satan, free will to love Him, or not. Think about it, if God created us to love Him against our will, would it be real love? No, it would be fake. Now God did create some specific creatures that have the duty to guard around His throne that cannot change, the 'zoon' beasts of Revelation 4:6.

Satan, or Lucifer, simply chose not... to love God, but to be jealous of Him, and coveted God's Place for himself. And that is the very temptation he also threw at Eve in Genesis 3, that one would be like God by eating of the tree in the midst of the garden.

We cannot compare this present world with that old world before Satan rebelled, just like we cannot compare the world to come after Jesus returns with this present world either. Before Satan coveted God's throne, like Ezekiel 28 shows, he was "perfect in thy ways", until iniquity was found in him.

Satan is the father of rebellion and lies (see John 8). No demons influenced him, which is a present world type comparison.

But when satan was lucifer, before he rebelled, he didn't have a fallen nature and there were no demons to plant seeds in him (were they?), so how did the desire to covet God's throne appear? Like, if his job was to glorify and worship God, he should have no attraction towards doing anything that is opposed to that. It's kind of how a well-fed herbivore, who had been grazing the entire day, will look at a piece of meat you give it and have no desire to eat from it. Because it doesn't like meat and because it doesn't lack the food it needs.

It's more simply than what you're trying to figure. Satan could not have rebelled if God had not given him free will in the first place. So there's no use in looking for other reasons why Satan rebelled. Satan simply wants to be GOD, and sit in His Place. Satan is not alone in that desire either. A simple reading of Old Testament history ought to reveal that with the beast kings of past history of empires who thought they were gods.


This is about the future new heavens and a new earth, after Christ's future return and literal reign over the wicked, and after the destruction of the devil, hell, and death in the lake of fire...

Isa 65:17-18
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
KJV

We will not remember this present world. God is going to 'create' us to be "a rejoicing" and "a joy" to Him in that future. How can He just up do that? It will be because WE CHOSE to love Him and be with Him forever! Because of our decision, He makes us HIS, and that is how there will never, ever, be another rebellion against Him again.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

How do you define "to love"? Is it an emotion or a decision to obey someone?

 

[SetFree]

How do you define "to love"? Is it an emotion or a decision to obey someone?

Well, yeah. If you love someone you'll naturally want to please them. And guess what God said why He created us?

Rev 4:10-11
10 The four and twenty elders fall down before Him That sat on the throne, and worship Him That liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created.
KJV

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Well, yeah. If you love someone you'll naturally want to please them. And guess what God said why He created us?

Answer my question, please. And stop bombarding me with Bible verses. How do you define "to love"? What is "love"? Is it an emotion?

 

[SetFree]

Answer my question, please. And stop bombarding me with Bible verses. How do you define "to love"? What is "love"? Is it an emotion?

I did answer you, and can't get any greater evidence than God's written Word. So I don't care to do men's philosophy if that's what you are wanting instead.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I did answer you, and can't get any greater evidence than God's written Word. So I don't care to do men's philosophy if that's what you are wanting instead.

You did not answer me. I asked you to define "to love", and your reply was "well, yeah". Please answer my question or I will find myself unable to continue this conversation.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I did answer you, and can't get any greater evidence than God's written Word. So I don't care to do men's philosophy if that's what you are wanting instead.

Philosophy? I understood almost nothing of what you said. You've wasted minutes typing explanations that I don't understand. How does that benefit me? I asked you what love is because I want to have clear definitions of the terms we are discussing, otherwise we cannot understand each other.

If love is an emotion, then I completely disagree with your claim that it is within our powers to choose to have it. Or, at the very least, I don't know how to do that. I cannot conjure up love as a feeling. I've experienced emotions that are similar to what the dictionary defines as "love", but they have always been as a result of interventions that God did on me.

If love is the decision to obey someone in spite of harboring negative emotions towards them, then yes, that is, to some extent, within my powers to do.

Now, going back to the question about why the desire to covet God's throne would appear within a being who was created with a nature lacking said desire. I found your explanation incoherent. You said that satan rebelled because he had free will. That doesn't explain anything. Why would he want to use his free will to do something that was against what he was designed to desire?

Humans have free will to do lots of things that they don't do because they find those things undesirable. Animals too. The example I gave you. Take a herbivore animal, feed it fresh vegetables all day long until it's full, put it in an environment in which it feels safe, and then give it a piece of raw meat. It will find the meat unappetizing, undesirable, and he will not want to covet it. Why? Because it wasn't designed with the desire for meat and because it doesn't lack the food that it was designed to eat.

So, if God designed satan to find his joy in serving and obeying God, even if he had free will to disobey, he would have had no rational reason to do so because he would have found the ideas of disobeying and of coveting God's throne undesirable.

 

[Lees]

Philosophy? I understood almost nothing of what you said. You've wasted minutes typing explanations that I don't understand. How does that benefit me? I asked you what love is because I want to have clear definitions of the terms we are discussing, otherwise we cannot understand each other.

If love is an emotion, then I completely disagree with your claim that it is within our powers to choose to have it. Or, at the very least, I don't know how to do that. I cannot conjure up love as a feeling. I've experienced emotions that are similar to what the dictionary defines as "love", but they have always been as a result of interventions that God did on me.

If love is the decision to obey someone in spite of harboring negative emotions towards them, then yes, that is, to some extent, within my powers to do.

Now, going back to the question about why the desire to covet God's throne would appear within a being who was created with a nature lacking said desire. I found your explanation incoherent. You said that satan rebelled because he had free will. That doesn't explain anything. Why would he want to use his free will to do something that was against what he was designed to desire?

Humans have free will to do lots of things that they don't do because they find those things undesirable. Animals too. The example I gave you. Take a herbivore animal, feed it fresh vegetables all day long until it's full, put it in an environment in which it feels safe, and then give it a piece of raw meat. It will find the meat unappetizing, undesirable, and he will not want to covet it. Why? Because it wasn't designed with the desire for meat and because it doesn't lack the food that it was designed to eat.

So, if God designed satan to find his joy in serving and obeying God, even if he had free will to disobey, he would have had no rational reason to do so because he would have found the ideas of disobeying and of coveting God's throne undesirable.

Love certainly is an emotion. We cannot 'choose' to love. We love. Just like we hate. We can choose to follow Christ. Love comes later, on our part, due to our experiences with Christ.

Satan was a murderer from the beginning. (John 8:44) He did in accordance as to who he was/is.

Satan's joy could never be in serving and worshipping God. That is worse than hell for him. But Satan knows one thing....there is no greater than God. Satan said "I will be like the Most High". Not greater than the Most High. He knew there was no greater.

That doesn't stop Satan from coveting God's place. The idea of being as God, and being worshipped as God, were very desirable to him.

Satan is evil personified. God, in Jesus Christ, is good personified.

Lees

 

[Fritz Kobus]

How do we know what is God's word and what isn't?

Here is an article that speaks to this question.

 

[Prepared]

We literally can't agree on WHY Christ had to suffer and die and on how salvation is achieved. Orthodox and Protestants believe that He died for completely different reasons. I'm sorry, but I think knowing the reason why an omnipotent God had to send His Son to suffer and die in order to be able to forgive you for a wrongdoing your ancestors did is pretty important stuff.

Thank you for your opinion. And why Christ came here died and resurrected is pretty important stuff - and if I neglected to say that the salvation Christ gives *is what is most important and churches agree on then I say so now.* I've tried to find the differences in Orthodox and Protestants believe and I find that they believe in the same thing that Christ died for us, and that is what is most important for all of mankind. I can't find a difference in their beliefs concerning the reason and death of Christ. Could you please explain the difference you mean to educate me?

Why Christ had to Die – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

orthodoxbridge.com

Catholic vs Protestant - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

What's the difference between Catholic and Protestant? Catholicism and Protestantism are two denominations of Christianity, just like Shia and Sunni are sects of Islam. While the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, Protestantism is a general term that refers to Christianity that is not...

www.diffen.com

Hope I can post these links.

 

[Prepared]

Hmmm. I agree that "wildly different things" overstates it. Christians of different denominations have much in common, including the essentials of the faith in almost every case; but yet, what Christians disagree on is not confined to minor things.

There are a lot of differences that are important, and this is true even among people who agree on the basics of the faith such as the identity of the true God, the creation and fall of mankind, the need for a savior, and so on. We see this in everyday existence. Christians of different denominations generally concede that the members of a denomination other than their own are true believers because of the basics, but they nevertheless choose membership in different congregations because truth is still important when it comes to who leads the congregation, what the ordinances/sacraments that are observed represent, exactly what it is that Christ taught as being morally vs. what actions are immoral, and more.

Minor - simply means less important / not as important.
I don't know of a CHRISTIAN church that teaches differently of what is morally wrong or morally right as written in Scripture.

Humans have flaws even the pastors, bishops, priest, so in most cases Christian churches do the best they can to have someone in the pulpits that are more Godly than not.

I don't know of a Christian Church that does not preach / the truth of scripture the best of their ability and belief of understandings. And that is where disagreements may come in such as ordinances, sacraments, whether to wear a cross or not, whether to take communion or not, how old the Earth is, whether we're saved by faith alone, and more. Personally I consider these as minor / meaning *less important* but important because all scripture has its value. The main purpose of the Gospel is to let everyone know that Jesus is Lord and through him salvation / redemption can be obtained.

 

[Albion]

Minor - simply means less important / not as important.

It doesn't just mean less important. It means less important than something else that is identified. Second degree murder is less "important" than first degree murder, therefore, but it's certainly not one of the "minor" offenses.

I don't know of a CHRISTIAN church that teaches differently of what is morally wrong or morally right as written in Scripture.

I could give you scores of examples. But let's take several in order to illustrate the point.

There are well-known denominations that consider abortion except to save the life of the mother to be a mortal sin, but there are others which are equally well-known and well-established that take the view that it's a mother's choice to do or not to do. And there are those that consider divorce for any reason to be morally wrong, while many believe and teach that there are reasons that justify the decision to divorce. There are churches that teach that drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes is a moral wrong. but there are others which teach that this is not the case unless it is so excessive that other harmful issues result. They all base their views on Scripture.

I don't know of a Christian Church that does not preach / the truth of scripture the best of their ability and belief of understandings. And that is where disagreements may come in such as ordinances, sacraments, whether to wear a cross or not, whether to take communion or not, how old the Earth is, whether we're saved by faith alone, and more. Personally I consider these as minor / meaning *less important* but important because all scripture has its value. The main purpose of the Gospel is to let everyone know that Jesus is Lord and through him salvation / redemption can be obtained.

1. What you personally choose to think about what's minor or major, or moral or immoral, isn't the issue.

2. The "main" purpose of the Gospel may indeed be as you say, but there is no reason to think that the Bible or the Gospels in particular serve ONLY that purpose.

Indeed, a reading of the material makes it clear that there are indeed other purposes, including teaching moral or ethical conduct.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I've tried to find the differences in Orthodox and Protestants believe and I find that they believe in the same thing that Christ died for us

What does "for us" mean? Why exactly did He have to die for us? Why exactly did anyone have to die for us? Why exactly did anyone have to die at all, whether for us or for anyone else?

If God is omnipotent (that means all-powerful, that He can do anything, that's what Jesus Himself said - that with God all things are possible), then nobody should have had to die, be it for us or for anyone.

 

[Albion]

What does "for us" mean? Why exactly did He have to die for us?

The question here concerned "diversity" among Christians...and that it might be worrisome. When it is pointed out that Protestants and Orthodox Christian both believe that Christ died for us, that's unity, not diversity.

But as for your question, our colleague "Prepared," took it on by saying "The main purpose of the Gospel is to let everyone know that Jesus is Lord and through him salvation / redemption can be obtained." (post 57)

We might elaborate on that information a bit by pointing to the fact that no mortals could be saved prior to Christ, and that's because the whole human race fell from God with the sin of Adam and Eve. However, God in his love for his creation personally paid the price for man's sin on the Cross, therefore we say that he died for us. God is merciful, but he also is just, and it would not be justice if he merely waved his hand (as people like to suggest) and said he'd changed his mind and everybody will advance to heaven, Mao Zedong no less than Francis of Assisi.