Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
None of this addresses what I said in post #1385. You expect us to believe that some human king was the anointed cherub who had been in the garden of Eden and who covered the mountain (kingdom) of God and was perfect in all his ways from the time he was created? That can't be taken seriously. The description given in Ezekiel 28:12-19 can only describe an angel who had fallen.
That's a poor translation of that verse and there is no scripture which teaches that "The evil spirit called Satan exists that mankind might experience both good and evil". I feel sorry for those who seem to think that the KJV is the original manuscript of the Bible.
He won't address this. There's no way in the world that what is written in Ezekiel 28:12-19 could describe any man that ever lived. A man who was in the garden of Eden and created perfect in his ways and was the anointed cherub who covered the mountain (kingdom) of God? Only Adam fits any of that description and I'm sure he was not the anointed cherub who covered the mountain of God. He is the king of the fallen angels (they are called "his angels" - Matt 25:41, Rev 12:9) and they all fell and left their first estate and positions as God's angels in heaven. He has to resort to denying that Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4 and other scriptures are referring to fallen angels because of his inability to discern what Ezekiel 28 is about.
You have no rebuttal for what is written in verses like Ezekiel 28:12-19, Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4. You have to resort to believing that Ezekiel 28:12-19 is talking about some perfect man who was in the garden of Eden and was the anointed cherub who covered the mountain of God. And you have to resort to saying verses like Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4 and many others are not talking about angels, but rather evil human messengers. It should concern you that you have to resort to not accepting what these verses indicate and making them say something besides what they clearly say.That's rich! Slander with a good laugh.I understand why you cannot prove from the Bible my rebuttal is not truth. To do so would make you look foolish, and that is what you're scared of.
That is truth and you have done literally nothing to convincingly refute it after all this time.
You're not making any sense here. Ezekiel 28:12-19 indicates that the king of Tyre was the anointed cherub of the mountain (kingdom) of God and was in the garden of Eden and was perfect in all his ways. So, you're saying the king of Tyre was an imaginary figure? You can't deny that the king of Tyre was at one time the anointed cherub of the mountain/kingdom of God, so if what you're saying is true that a cherub is an imaginary figure, then that means you're saying the king of Tyre was an imaginary figure since he was the anointed cherub. This is the kind of nonsense your logic leads to. So, are you going to claim that the king of Tyre was an imaginary figure in order to be consistent with your understanding of cherubs or are you going to rethink this and admit that your explanation given here would mean the king of Tyre was an imaginary figure?
And this is the same case in point... the issue is how you understand this "creating" of darkness and evil. Depending on the context, we can say God creates something...
Hmmm... This spills over into something a bit different, I think, and I would agree... except for the "through Providence" thing. <smile> If by "whom among mankind shall be dishonorable and who shall be honorable" you're referring to what Paul says in Romans 9, here, God ~ as Paul says, there ~ made some for honorable use and some for dishonorable use. And, I could expound on this but I think you're easily of high enough intellect to understand what I say when I say the 'for,' there (for honorable use and for dishonorable use) is a very, very important part of what Paul says there. And it speaks to my point above... meets head-on with option B. <smile>
Sorry, I don't even get why you're asking that question... which I guess is rhetorical, but yeah, why do you even ask that, even rhetorically?
Ah, well okay, I understand now why the rhetorical question above... So to this, no, of course not. I think you know that... <smile>
Sovereign. Sovereign over all the affairs of mankind. And that's a reeeeeeeeeeeeeeally important distinction to make. Yes, God, in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), "is the alone fountain of all being, of Whom, through Whom, and to Whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases." His sovereignty and His providence are two different things. "Providential," then... I mean, you know this, but the root word there is 'provide,' which, yes, God ~ Jehovah Jireh ~ provides, but he does not provide sinful or evil things. Again, I know you know this. And further (and I know you know this, too) He ordains all that comes to pass. According to the WCF, "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." Words are really important, which, yeah, you agree with that, too, I'm sure.
Right. Well... if natural man was of God and thus knew or believed that submitting to God would get him eternal life, then he would... submit to God. But because of the fall... you know all this, too... man is born sinful, dead in his sin and thus a slave to unrighteousness (Romans 6, Ephesians 2); he is, naturally, in rebellion against God, at enmity with Him, as the Bible puts it.
As I have said, the issue seems to be your understanding of that "creating." Even in the way you are saying that, by saying He creates darkness and evil in the context in which you're saying that and then saying (correctly of course) that He's never guilty of sin, you're unintentionally contradicting yourself. He does not create darkness and evil in the sense that he is the source of it or that He actually ~ because that would be attributing this darkness and evil to God Himself ~ but rather in the sense that, though He is not the source of it, He is sovereign over it ~ as He is all things ~ and so, well, again, causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike... uses it ~ He does not do it, nor is he responsible for it, but He does allow it ~ for now ~ because it serves His greater purposes, and in such a way that brings glory to Him. As Paul goes on to say in Romans 9, speaking of His elect and non-elect, respectively, "What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"
Right. Sure.
I agree. So maybe we're closer to the same page than I think. <smile> However... hmmm... "incorporated..." Wellllllll... <smile>
<chuckles> I'm... not... <smile> Which you know...
Sure. But that's not quite how you framed it originally... Or at least it seemed that way to me... And not in Genesis 1. And the issue regarding your take in Isaiah 45 was "creating," and might still be, but I'm not sure...
No need... <smile>
As I said before, because in Genesis 1 and 2, evil is not being referred to at all. Is it foreshadowed by God's separating the light from the darkness? Well, maybe, but I don't think so; I think reading that into it is going beyond the context of Genesis 1 and 2 and God's creation of all things... It's really solely about God having created everything from nothing... and the darkness speaks directly to the nothingness that existed before God's creative act. If you disagree, well, then, okay, fair enough. <smile>
I don't disagree with you regarding the spiritual connation of "darkness." But again, creation of light and darkness and the "separation" of the two occurred, of course, as you know, before the fall. And what we see existing before the fall is ~ I believe ~ a direct indication of how things will be in the new heaven and new earth... in eternity. Even the darkness was created good, even very good, as God Himself declared all of Creation. I think you're conflating the two, RWB, with regard to the creation of the world and the "creation" of evil. In the beginning, so before the fall, God created morning and evening... and God created it all very good. Darkness in the sense of evil and sin is not view in Genesis 1. Sin doesn't even occur until Genesis 3, right? Adam did not bring sin into the world and death through sin until then. And I would say that when the end comes and Jesus finally redeems creation in full and we are in the New Heaven and New Earth, in eternity, there will be morning and evening... even darkness ~ morning and evening, nighttime included. But yes, there will be no darkness in the sense of evil or sin, of course... in eternity. It will all be, again, very good.
Sure. But surely you wouldn't say that God's glory is not manifest at all now, right?
Right, I know you wouldn't, RWB. I was making a point by saying that.
See, your use of "creates," there, is... well, ambiguous. I know you don't mean it to be, and in fact you seem to be using it in the correct sense, here, so, good. <smile> But to this point, you've been seemingly using it in both senses... so positive, connotatively, and negative, connotatively, at the same time, and those two connotations are opposite each other. Maybe I'll end with this:
Yeah, here is the issue. There's a conflation here in what you say of two very different things... specifically the darkness of Genesis 1 and what is being spoken of as "darkness" in Isaiah 45.
Right, including... in the context of what it refers to in Genesis 1, darkness, synonymous in this case with, in Genesis 1 itself, evening, and, also in Genesis 1 itself, night. The "darkness" ~ in quotes... ~ in Isaiah 45 is a very different thing. And, in the creation story of Genesis 1 and 2, He created the darkness (as well as the light and everything else) out of nothingness. Yet again, though, in Isaiah 45, He's not creating anything out of nothing, much less sin and evil... but He is, in His sovereignty over all of creation, "creating evil" in the sense of, well, causing the rain to fall on the just and the unjust, according to His purpose(s).
I mean I get that you think I am, but no, not at all... <smile>
You think I'm assuming or insinuating that, even after I've said (several times now) that darkness... evening, night... is part of His Creation, all of which He pronounced good... even very good? <sigh> <smile>
Not the darkness itself (again, as I've said multiple times)...
Hmmmm... Maybe the thing to do regarding the "darkness" of Isaiah 45 is to understand it as a metaphor for the, um, "dark times" we endure in this life, or trial and tribulation, or even in the lesser sense judgments as opposed to blessings, or, in the case of Christians, discipline at the hands of the Lord (He disciplines those He loves; Hebrews 12:5-11).
You can certainly just chalk it up as my opinion if you want; I have no issue with that. I mean I could ask you how you prove otherwise, and you might say you just did, but you gave me your opinion, too, RWB. All good.
I'm not assuming anything; see above. If by saying I'm assuming, on one hand, whatever it is you think I'm assuming (because I have no idea what you think I assumed)... is the same thing as conveying to you, on the other hand, my opinion regarding Genesis 1 or Isaiah 45, or any other part of the Bible, then... you know, yeah, okay.
We have exchanged opinions on these things, RWB. I don't accept yours, and you don't accept mine. It's what's commonly known as.... commonly called... disagreement. <smile>
Yeah, okay, that's cool. I disagree with you regarding Genesis 1. And I would simply say that everything contained in Genesis 1 is before the Fall of Adam in Genesis 3, and that should be well sufficient to support my opinion on Genesis 1 and not yours. But, okay, we disagree.
Right, I get it. But you would agree with me ~ I think ~ that everything that happens in Genesis 1 is well before the events of Genesis 3. So... again, I think that should be well sufficient to support my opinion on Genesis 1 ~ Biblically, so from Scripture, with no preconceived notion or opinion of my own ~ and not yours. And again, I have no issue with your disagreeing with what I have said.
