And, incidentally, Satan IS the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4).
George
This was just as much of a surprise to me when stumbling upon this, as it might be to you, but -
No he ISN'T. Satan is NOT the "God of this World" - at least here in 2 Cor.4.
This passage does NOT refer to Satan or "the Devil".
At least the second-century early Christians I've read -namely, Tertullian of Carthage in his work against Marcion (Book V) - did not interpret "the God of this world" (or "Aeon") as "Satan". Tertullian, rather than rebuking Marcion for identifying the "God of this world" as "the Old Testament God (in contrast to the New Testament God) - merely shifted a comma and actually agreed with Marcion, that the "God of this World" was - at least to Tertullian's view - the one and same God of both the Old and New Testaments.
So we've one proto-orthodox dude and one heretic
here who are agreed on one thing - Satan is not the "God of this world" in 2 Cor.4:4.
quote: If someone who was once "born of the wrong seed" recognizes his error and turns to Christ and confesses Romans 10:9,10, SHALT he be saved or not?
Yes, he shall, but that's a pretty big "if".
[Tell that to Simon the Sorceror. Is anything too hard for God? ]
Notice that in Matthew 12:33, the verse right after the one in question, he compares both spiritual powers with trees and fruit. Can't have trees and fruit without a SEED, right? The devil cannot create life but he can steal, kill, and destroy.
[Can't have anything without its origin. Fruit proceeds from trees, just as our actions proceed from what is in our hearts. Those who hold that the appetites of the flesh are most important certainly will act on that, just as those who believe God will act on that. The fruit proceeds from its origin, its source. Matthew 12:35 makes the points of the preceeding verses clear. Other than supposing the concept "seed" from the chapter, I'd like to see you cite the VERSE that SAYS "seed" in that chapter. It's not there? Your understanding of the verse places it there? vpw used to call that private...what? (Except when HE did it, of course. Then it was fine. ) ]
provokes others in my mind - is a "prince" (even "of this world") necessarily a "god"?
In the case of John's "Prince of this World", he is most likely referring to Satan - but nonethless, he didn't call him "God".
Is our assumption correct, that the "prince of this world" and "the God of this world" are the same being?
The Satan of the Old Testament - at least of what I can gather of the attitude toward Satan in Rabbinic Judaism - though serving an antagonistic function, is still subservient to the God higher than himself. Satan may be the "prince" of this world but he's not the God of the this world.
There are, as Paul said, many so-called "gods" and lords" in heaven and earth - but I would imagine, especially to a pious Jewish mindset - that the last thing Paul would have allowed himself to do is to attribute to a mere angel (let alone a corrupt one) the ultimate title of "the God of this world" if, as we were taught, 2 Cor.4:4 referred to Satan.
Another passage that comes to mind - "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof" - but wouldn't this run counter to the idea that Satan is the "God of this World"?
quote:Yes, he shall, but that's a pretty big "if". From our flesh point of view it doesn't look like there's any reason why anyone couldn't turn to Christ and get saved, but God says in his word "hath never forgiveness...nor the world which is to come".
Thanks for your reply. Yes, it's a very big "if." One might even say "uttermost."
"From our flesh point of view" you are correct. But I didn't think we were looking at this from a flesh point of view.
Biblically, doesn't it make sense to you that Jesus was speaking of people who never turn to him, that this is the unforgivable sin (namely, rejecting him)?
Regarding the usage of fruit and trees in Matthew 12:33, Jesus is talking about behavior and speech, not eternal life (or life in the age to come, to put it literally). In none of the verses which follow does Jesus state or imply that he's talking about salvation.
Note the verse: "EITHER MAKE THE TREE GOOD, AND HIS FRUIT GOOD..."
How can you "make" a tree good? Literally, you can't. But if it's a figure of speech and not literal, then the figure calls attention to itself, doesn't it? You can't literally change a tree. But you can literally change you. If you insist on the meaning of trees and fruit as unchangeable seed, you will always, hands down, miss the point of this verse.
This has become a doctrinal discussion. If anyone objects to that, I'll stop.
Rather than torture ourselves with reinventing the wheel here, we might well have done what raf just did: go back to the orthodox interpretation and start there. Turns out it is quite correct: the unforgiveable sin is to reject Christ. Specifically, to be enlightened to your fallen state by the Holy spirit and be given an opportunity to repent and, by faith, to receive Christ...and then wilfully rejecting Him.
If you die in that state, you have committed the unforgiveable sin.
to be enlightened by the holy spirit and the reject christ?
all knees must bow to christ..
I kind of get it I do believe it is a choice but Evan if we are called before the foundation of the world hello and God knows each one hello what are you saying that person says NO to God and that is the point reject HIS plan for your life they commint the unforgivable sin?
explain please.. if God knows who is HIS, then it is willfull disregard for His will much like Lucifer did as an angel in heaven?
All right, boys and girls, how about this? God tells the Devil that his seed will be at enmity with the seed of the woman. IN EVERY INSTANCE in the Old Testament, zera, translated "seed," refers literally to seed or figuratively to progeny. So even if "children" or "sons" can refer to followers, what is teh Devil's "seed," if not his children?
quote: I kind of get it I do believe it is a choice but Evan if we are called before the foundation of the world hello and God knows each one hello what are you saying that person says NO to God and that is the point reject HIS plan for your life they commint the unforgivable sin?
explain please.. if God knows who is HIS, then it is willfull disregard for His will much like Lucifer did as an angel in heaven?
I hadn't quite thought of it that way, mj, but yes, I'd agree. Interesting way of putting it.
In WierwilleORama™ "free will" (a concept wholly absent from the Bible, incidentally) was elevated to such a holy status, the very idea that God would choose people, predestine them to salvation, was anathema. So, they fail to balance God's will with man's will. They think it was entirely our choice. Reading some basic Luther would help them to understand that without being enlightened by the Holy Spirit we'd never see our need for Christ. Romans & Galatians are shot through with this truth.
So, yes, to be enlightened and then wilfully choose against Christ, that's it. Until a person dies, however, there is always the opportunity to repent.
quote: From our flesh point of view" you are correct. But I didn't think we were looking at this from a flesh point of view.
All we have is our flesh point of view. If the unforgiveable sin is rejecting Christ and nobody is confirmed as having committed it until they die then it doesn't make sense for Jesus to say "neither in this world neither in the world which is to come". No. It has to be possible to do something in THIS world which can't be forgiven in the world which is to come, or verse 32 doesn't make sense.
Looking over your argument Evan, isn't 'enlightened' by the holy spirit a tad more distinctive from lacking of free will than you give credit for? Because basically, all free will is is that you are the one choosing, whether you are 'enlightened' or not, whether you understand or not, whether you 'get the spirit' or not. Whether we see our need for Christ or not is really irrelevent in this respect.
quote: "free will" (a concept wholly absent from the Bible, incidentally)
Perhaps that is why I have distanced myself from this kind of fundamentalist attitude/brainless mindset then. And to be honest, it was an attitude that I never dared to question for a good part of my life due to the appeal to fear and retribution that was the strong motivation not to, ..... until recently I did start to dare to question why this 'blind sided fear' was so necessary and uhh, 'godly' (-->). Ie., indicative of an ultimately Advanced and Superior Being worthy of our worship.
And I finally realized, ... that it wasn't. ... Or, to put it in George Carlin's 'immortal' ;)--> words, "This isn't the work of a Supreme Being. This is more the result of an office temp with a bad attitude!"
quote:Which agrees with God has given them the spirit of slumber lest they see with their eyes and are converted.
So in 1 Samuel 19:9 where it says an "evil spirit from the Lord was upon Saul" you think that means God sends all evil spirits? I thought God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
16
16
18
Popular Days
Oct 26
27
Nov 11
15
Nov 13
13
Oct 30
13
Top Posters In This Topic
GeorgeStGeorge 23 posts
Raf 16 posts
Eagle 16 posts
dmiller 18 posts
Popular Days
Oct 26 2004
27 posts
Nov 11 2004
15 posts
Nov 13 2004
13 posts
Oct 30 2004
13 posts
TheInvisibleDan
This was just as much of a surprise to me when stumbling upon this, as it might be to you, but -
No he ISN'T. Satan is NOT the "God of this World" - at least here in 2 Cor.4.
This passage does NOT refer to Satan or "the Devil".
At least the second-century early Christians I've read -namely, Tertullian of Carthage in his work against Marcion (Book V) - did not interpret "the God of this world" (or "Aeon") as "Satan". Tertullian, rather than rebuking Marcion for identifying the "God of this world" as "the Old Testament God (in contrast to the New Testament God) - merely shifted a comma and actually agreed with Marcion, that the "God of this World" was - at least to Tertullian's view - the one and same God of both the Old and New Testaments.
So we've one proto-orthodox dude and one heretic
here who are agreed on one thing - Satan is not the "God of this world" in 2 Cor.4:4.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
That makes no sense at all. So God blinds the minds of those who don't believe in Him? Right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Well, he hardens hearts (like Pharoah), why couldn't it be the same with blinding the eyes?
Some kind of figurative usage?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Which agrees with God has given them the spirit of slumber lest they see with their eyes and are converted.
Hmmmmmmm
Yo Calvin...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
And Jesus spoke in parables so that in hearing they would not hear and seeing they would not see.
God I love this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Or, "... shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Dan,
so, when Jesus says
"the prince of this world cometh"
and "hath nothing in me",
how does that fit in with your understanding
of II Cor 4:4?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[Can't have anything without its origin. Fruit proceeds from trees, just as our actions proceed from what is in our hearts. Those who hold that the appetites of the flesh are most important certainly will act on that, just as those who believe God will act on that. The fruit proceeds from its origin, its source. Matthew 12:35 makes the points of the preceeding verses clear. Other than supposing the concept "seed" from the chapter, I'd like to see you cite the VERSE that SAYS "seed" in that chapter. It's not there? Your understanding of the verse places it there? vpw used to call that private...what? (Except when HE did it, of course. Then it was fine. ) ]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Wordwolf,
that's a very good question, which in turn
provokes others in my mind - is a "prince" (even "of this world") necessarily a "god"?
In the case of John's "Prince of this World", he is most likely referring to Satan - but nonethless, he didn't call him "God".
Is our assumption correct, that the "prince of this world" and "the God of this world" are the same being?
The Satan of the Old Testament - at least of what I can gather of the attitude toward Satan in Rabbinic Judaism - though serving an antagonistic function, is still subservient to the God higher than himself. Satan may be the "prince" of this world but he's not the God of the this world.
There are, as Paul said, many so-called "gods" and lords" in heaven and earth - but I would imagine, especially to a pious Jewish mindset - that the last thing Paul would have allowed himself to do is to attribute to a mere angel (let alone a corrupt one) the ultimate title of "the God of this world" if, as we were taught, 2 Cor.4:4 referred to Satan.
Another passage that comes to mind - "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof" - but wouldn't this run counter to the idea that Satan is the "God of this World"?
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
John,
Thanks for your reply. Yes, it's a very big "if." One might even say "uttermost."
"From our flesh point of view" you are correct. But I didn't think we were looking at this from a flesh point of view.
Biblically, doesn't it make sense to you that Jesus was speaking of people who never turn to him, that this is the unforgivable sin (namely, rejecting him)?
Regarding the usage of fruit and trees in Matthew 12:33, Jesus is talking about behavior and speech, not eternal life (or life in the age to come, to put it literally). In none of the verses which follow does Jesus state or imply that he's talking about salvation.
Note the verse: "EITHER MAKE THE TREE GOOD, AND HIS FRUIT GOOD..."
How can you "make" a tree good? Literally, you can't. But if it's a figure of speech and not literal, then the figure calls attention to itself, doesn't it? You can't literally change a tree. But you can literally change you. If you insist on the meaning of trees and fruit as unchangeable seed, you will always, hands down, miss the point of this verse.
This has become a doctrinal discussion. If anyone objects to that, I'll stop.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Rather than torture ourselves with reinventing the wheel here, we might well have done what raf just did: go back to the orthodox interpretation and start there. Turns out it is quite correct: the unforgiveable sin is to reject Christ. Specifically, to be enlightened to your fallen state by the Holy spirit and be given an opportunity to repent and, by faith, to receive Christ...and then wilfully rejecting Him.
If you die in that state, you have committed the unforgiveable sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I disagree.
Got a basis for that statement?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Which statement, wolf?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
to be enlightened by the holy spirit and the reject christ?
all knees must bow to christ..
I kind of get it I do believe it is a choice but Evan if we are called before the foundation of the world hello and God knows each one hello what are you saying that person says NO to God and that is the point reject HIS plan for your life they commint the unforgivable sin?
explain please.. if God knows who is HIS, then it is willfull disregard for His will much like Lucifer did as an angel in heaven?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
that is frightening because where does the Redeemer come in then?
what good did christ do to save the sinner then?
oh do come back and explain your thoughts please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
All right, boys and girls, how about this? God tells the Devil that his seed will be at enmity with the seed of the woman. IN EVERY INSTANCE in the Old Testament, zera, translated "seed," refers literally to seed or figuratively to progeny. So even if "children" or "sons" can refer to followers, what is teh Devil's "seed," if not his children?
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Good question. I'll look it up, let you know if I have an answer or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I hadn't quite thought of it that way, mj, but yes, I'd agree. Interesting way of putting it.
In WierwilleORama™ "free will" (a concept wholly absent from the Bible, incidentally) was elevated to such a holy status, the very idea that God would choose people, predestine them to salvation, was anathema. So, they fail to balance God's will with man's will. They think it was entirely our choice. Reading some basic Luther would help them to understand that without being enlightened by the Holy Spirit we'd never see our need for Christ. Romans & Galatians are shot through with this truth.
So, yes, to be enlightened and then wilfully choose against Christ, that's it. Until a person dies, however, there is always the opportunity to repent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Raf:
quote: From our flesh point of view" you are correct. But I didn't think we were looking at this from a flesh point of view.
All we have is our flesh point of view. If the unforgiveable sin is rejecting Christ and nobody is confirmed as having committed it until they die then it doesn't make sense for Jesus to say "neither in this world neither in the world which is to come". No. It has to be possible to do something in THIS world which can't be forgiven in the world which is to come, or verse 32 doesn't make sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Evan:
quote: "free will" (a concept wholly absent from the Bible, incidentally)
Evan, did you just post that, or did somebody MAKE you do it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Looking over your argument Evan, isn't 'enlightened' by the holy spirit a tad more distinctive from lacking of free will than you give credit for? Because basically, all free will is is that you are the one choosing, whether you are 'enlightened' or not, whether you understand or not, whether you 'get the spirit' or not. Whether we see our need for Christ or not is really irrelevent in this respect.
Perhaps that is why I have distanced myself from this kind of fundamentalist attitude/brainless mindset then. And to be honest, it was an attitude that I never dared to question for a good part of my life due to the appeal to fear and retribution that was the strong motivation not to, ..... until recently I did start to dare to question why this 'blind sided fear' was so necessary and uhh, 'godly' (
-->). Ie., indicative of an ultimately Advanced and Superior Being worthy of our worship.
And I finally realized, ... that it wasn't. ... Or, to put it in George Carlin's 'immortal'
;)--> words, "This isn't the work of a Supreme Being. This is more the result of an office temp with a bad attitude!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Evan:
quote:Which agrees with God has given them the spirit of slumber lest they see with their eyes and are converted.
So in 1 Samuel 19:9 where it says an "evil spirit from the Lord was upon Saul" you think that means God sends all evil spirits? I thought God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
ok then one can repent from the unforgivable sin by your thinking Evan . that doesnt make alot of sense.
not truly unforgivable then is it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
That is when the all-too-convenient argument comes into play about 'the things of the spirit often don't make sense'.
Mighty convenient.
:-
And some folks wonder why there are those of us who wind up becoming the 'damnable skeptics' that we are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.