#the seroent | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ian-iain · 4 years ago

Text

How Did Satan Come To Be?

I recently read an essay by Lesli White, who is an excellent writer. Her prose are very readable. However, her essay, “How Did Lucifer Fall and Become Satan? Where Things Really Went Wrong,” is total rubbish and almost entirely lacking in anything resembling scholarship. She seems to merely regurgitate Catholic nonsense on the matter, while providing almost no evidence for her assertions (indeed, she sites only four passages of Scripture; but, she lacks the two or three witnesses necessary to establish a matter).

Feel free to read her essay, in one piece, before you read my response to it. Here's the URI:

https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/how-did-lucifer-fall-and-become-satan.aspx

If the URI turns out to be a dead link, search on one of the many sentences that I will quote, below, from Miss White's essay, and you should be able to find a copy of the article.

Agreeing with the Roman Catholic schism of the body of Christ, Miss White teaches that “Satan was once named Lucifer, meaning ‘day star.’” But, while this is commonly held belief, even among many Satanists, it's simply not true. But, let's let Miss White make her case:

“The story of his fall is described in two key Old Testament chapters – Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. He was an angel who was powerful and full of wisdom. He was perhaps the most beautiful and splendid angel ever created by God and of the highest order, but his pride caused his downfall and God caste him from heaven.”

However, if you actually read Ezekiel 28, you'll discover that verses 1-19 are about the king of Tyre, not Satan. It is clearly said to be about the king of Tyre in verses 1 (where he is called the prince of Tyre) and 11. In verses 13 through 16, the language becomes poetic, and the king is referred to as a cherub who was in Eden. So, the Churchisees (so-called “fathers”) of the Catholic sect conclude, without warrant, that the king of Tyre represents Satan, rather than that the poetic language of 13-16 represents the king's longevity, knowledge, beauty, wealth, and other blessings. The remainder of the chapter isn't used by Miss White to explain Satan, so there's no need for me to discuss it, here.

Isaiah 14 is about Babylon and her king. The pertinent verses, used by the Churchisees of the Catholic clique, are these:

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations!And thou saidst in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north;I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”

— Isaiah 14:12-14 (American Standard Version)

The words “day star," hyphenated in the American Standard Version, are deceitfully turned into the name, Lucifer, in Catholic versions of the Scriptures, as well as in some Protestant versions. But, modern scholarship has recognized that the Hebrew words rendered Lucifer are not, in fact, a name; they are merely a symbolic description of the king of Babylon. And any reader with common sense would not adduce from this passage anything about Satan.

Additionally, Miss White provides no evidence that Satan “was. . . full of wisdom,” other than her mistaken spiritualized interpretation of Ezekiel and Isaiah. Satan is cunning; he was never wise; this will be seen, further on.

Miss White's asserts, that Satan's “pride caused his downfall and God caste him from heaven” (sic). Again, this notion is dependent upon the assumption that the tradition of the Churchisees is correct. But, a little leaven leavens the whole loaf (Galatians 5:9), so it's doubtful if any unadulterated truth ever came from that divisive organization.

Without actually making a case that Satan is a fallen angel, from Ezekiel 28 or Isaiah 14, White then asks: “So where did the breakdown happen? Why did he rebel?” She then goes on to regurgitate the pablum of the Catholic denomination:

“In Ezekiel 28: 15, it says that he remained perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him. We discover what this iniquity was in verse 17 which reads, “Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor.”

The problem with this, as I have noted, is that the passage is talking about the king of Tyre. Although symbolicly called a “cherub” (vv. 14 & 16), he is first called “a man” (v. 2). Moreover, the one spoken of has sanctuaries. Do angels have sanctuaries? Scripture never mentions them, if they do.

Of course, one could argue that this passage says they do; but, Scripture teaches us the principle that upon two or three witnesses every fact is to be confirmed (Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:26; 2bd Corinthians 13:1; 1st Timothy 5:29; Hebrews 10:28). And tradition is no witness; it's just an opinion or idea that has been passed down, with people having no way to know the reliability of it's origin or the many steps along the historical path of it's transmission in which it may have been corrupted. Miss White continues, saying,

“It appears that Lucifer became so impressed with his own beauty, intelligence, power and position that he began to desire the high honor and glory that belonged to God. This sin corrupted him and was resulted from self-generated pride. This represented the actual beginning of sin in the universe, even before the fall of Adam and original sin.”

Wait. . . What? So, Satan “remained perfect” until he didn't, and not remaining perfect corrupted him? Am I reading Miss White correctly? And THIS wasn't the actual beginning of sin in the universe, but merely “represented the actual beginning of sin in the universe”?

I don't know if White intends to decieve, or if it just didn't occur to her that it is deceptive to say “he remained perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him” (from the quotation previous to the one directly above). It's deceptive, because it gives the impression that that's what the text actually says; it doesn't. In every translation that I looked at (including two Catholic versions), the word “remained” was not used of the perfect state of the person of whom Ezekiel speaks! Every translation uses a word that denotes that he “was” (not “remained”) perfect until his transgression.

Why is this important? Because the word “remained,” as White uses it, in this instance, gives the impression that the text teaches that the one of whom Ezekiel speaks remained perfect, for as long as he did, of his own accord, and that, of his own accord he did that which was less than perfect. If this was a perfect angel, wouldn't turning to evil be an imperfect action? How does that which is perfect do that which is not perfect?

If Miss White is right, this is an important question: “What was the flaw in Satan's creation that allowed him to become corrupt without a tempter to goad him? Indeed, if this creature were created morally perfect, as God is morally perfect, then even with someone to tempt him, it would be impossible for him to sin; for moral perfection is immune to and resists temptation. God Himself cannot sin.

You say, “Wait a minute, Ian. Weren't Adam and Eve created morally perfect, and didn't they yeild to temptation?” That's an interesting question. The answer of Scripture is that Adam and Eve were not created morally perfect (Jeremiah 18:3-4; Romans 8:20; Colossians 3:22). Obviously, if they were created morally perfect, they could never have sinned. An essay of its own could be written on the origin of Adam and Eve's sinful nature; possibly even a book. But, logic and the testimony of three Scriptures makes it clear that Adam and Eve were created sinful by nature. I'll explore this, further, later on.

White continues, saying:

“As a result of Lucifer’s sin, he was rightfully judged by God. In Ezekiel 28:18 we learn that he was thrown to the earth. Satan was then completely cast out of God’s heavenly government and authority.”

Never mind the fact that the name Lucifer never actually appears in the original texts of either the Hebrew or the LXX, we do not learn from this passage that the day star, or anyone else, was thrown to earth. Moreover, we are told nowhere in Scripture that Satan ever had any part in God's heavenly government and authority. Satan was never thrown out of heaven, and unto this day he freely goes before the throne of God; for he continues to this day to acccuse the brethren (Revelation 12:10).

Miss White says, “He wanted to be like God and he discovered the consequences.” Again, this is the king of Tyre that Ezekiel is writing about. His sin was the same as the people of Babel (Genesis 11:4-9). But, Miss White goes on:

“Following his monstrous sin against God, Lucifer was banished from living in heaven which we are told about in Isaiah 14:12.”

Neither Satan nor the day star of Ezekiel’s prophecy were banished from living in heaven. There is zero evidence that Ezekiel's day star ever lived in God's heaven. And Satan's expulsion was foretold by the apostle John; so, it's apparent that Satan was not kicked out in Old Testament times:

“And there came war in the heaven; Michael and his messengers did war against the dragon, and the dragon did war, and his messengers,and they did not prevail, nor was their place found any more in the heaven;and the great dragon was cast forth -- the old serpent, who is called `Devil,' and `the Adversary,' who is leading astray the whole world -- he was cast forth to the earth, and his messengers were cast forth with him.”

— Revelation 12:7-9 (YLT)

Here's where Miss White demonstrates how little understanding she has about sin and corruption:

“After this, he became corrupt. He changed his name from Lucifer, meaning ‘day star’ or ‘morning star’ to Satan, meaning ‘adversary.’”

So, it was after he sinned, and after he was allegedly banned from living in heaven, that Satan became corrupt. That seems rather odd, to me; doesn't it seem odd to you? Because, my experience is that things stray from their proper function because they already are corrupt; they don't first go astray and then become corrupt.

Also, Miss White gives zero evidence that Satan changed his name from any name at all to any other name. Most reputable modern translations don't even have the name Lucifer in them; they properly render the Hebrew as “day star” or “morning star.” It is Scripture, not Satan, that calls the Devil by the name of Satan (and, even that may be only a descriptive term, and not a name).

Now, you may be wondering, “If Miss White is mistaken about how the devil came to be evil, exactly how did Satan come to be this way?” Fortunately, Jesus himself provides the answer:

“He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

— John 8:44

John says something pretty similar in one of his letters:

“For the devil has been sinning from the beginning.”

— 1 John 3:8

Of course, those ensnared by the so-called “orthodoxy” of the Churchisees will suggest,, “Maybe that means from the beginning of the world, not Satan's beginning.” Hmm. Maybe. But, “maybe” isn't recognized by Scripture, or any scholars of Scripture, as a legitimate way to interpret the Scriptures.

Let those who use theories to maintain their idols of the heart, their corrupt understanding of Scripture, take heed to the apostle Paul's admonition:

“. . . learn through us the meaning of the saying, “Nothing beyond what is written,” so that none of you will be puffed up. . .”

— 1 Corinthians 4:6 (New Revised Standard Version)

The only reason to reject the idea that “from the beginning” in these verses means from the beginning of Satan himself, is that you don't like that understanding. But, the Scriptures don't care if you like what they say.

The fact is, in any language, when we make a time statement, such as “from the beginning,” it always pertains to the subject at hand unless another point of reference is indicated. Jesus was perfectly capable of saying the words “from the beginning of creation,” if it was that beginning, and not Satan's, that he meant:

“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’”

— Mark 10:6 (New King James Version)

“For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be.”

— Mark 13:19 (NKJV)

But, you'd be an idiot if you thought Jesus meant “the beginning of the creation” in the following verse:

“And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning.”

— John 15:27 (NKJV)

And yet, here Jesus doesn't specify what beginning; so, maybe he means the beginning of creation. Well, I guess if the obvious meaning doesn't suit you, if you have a doctrinal idol of the heart that demands that it mean the beginning of creation, then maybe it does. God is willing to let you be decieved by your maybe; for, if God will deceive a prophet, he will certainly deceive those who refuse to see the truth:

“If a prophet gives a false message, I am the one who caused that prophet to lie. But I will still reject him and cut him off from my people.”

— Ezekiel 14:9 (Contemporary English Version)

“The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

— 2nd Thessalonians 2:9-12 (NKJV)

Naturally, many will ask, “If Satan was evil from the beginning of his existence, where did he come from?” The Scriptures aren't as clear about this as they are about the creation of man. It is implied that God created Satan, possibly at the same time he created the animals:

“Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind’; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”

— Genesis 1:24-25 (NKJV)

“Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, ‘Has God indeed said, “You shall not eat of every tree of the garden”?’”

— Genesis 3:1(NKJV)

Since serpents were known to the Hebrews as beasts that creep upon the earth, one may infer that God created this beast that tempted Eve, in the garden.

Many will ask, “If God created Satan, and especially if he created him along with all the other beasts, how can that be good?” The answer is this: If any aspect of the creation of Satan (his evil nature, for example) was a mistake, if anything about the creation of Satan missed the mark that God was aiming for, then God sinned (the word sin comes from a Greek archery term, which means to miss the mark). But, if every aspect of Satan is just as God has intended, then God may well approve of his workmanship and declare it good. This is not the same as saying evil is good; it is saying only that God's intention is good, that his achievement (in hitting the mark) is good, and that his handiwork is good. Bringing an evil one into the world was good; the evil itself was not.

No doubt, some will want to know, “How could bringing evil into the world possibly be good?” The answer is this: Contrast and Opposition.

Let's consider contrast, first. Have you ever seen the reaction of a deaf child that, by means of cochlear implants, has been given the gift of hearing? Or the reaction of a color-blind man who has put on glasses that allow him to see the full spectrum of the rainbow? Most people take these things for granted; but, those who have had an experience of not knowing their goodness have an appreciation that goes beyond what most of us can truly comprehend.

Goodness cannot properly be understood or appreciated without the experience of evil. Beauty cannot be fully appreciated apart without knowing that which is truly ugly. Peace cannot be properly valued without having known horror. Truth cannot be properly valued without the experience of deceit. Light cannot be fully enjoyed if you've never known darkness. Unity cannot be appreciated if you've never known division. Spiritual life cannot be appreciated without having known spiritual death.

Moreover, opposition is critical to development and maturity. Without it, proper growth is impossible. It is that opposition that we call “gravity,” which causes objects to fall to the ground, that initially keeps a baby from standing up and walking about; but, without that opposition, the baby would not grow in strength. Likewise, it is evil that enables a spiritual man to grow in moral character by his resistance to it. Jesus grew in maturity (Luke 2:52; Hebrews 5:8-9) to an extent that few who claim to follow him ever have:

“In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.”

— Hebrews 12:4 (NRSV)

Next, Miss White gets off on a rabbit trail, leaving the issue of how Satan became evil, to doing her best to make sure her readers never even consider that what she teaches is demonic; but, she's clever, and starts out with obvious truth, before going on to doctrines she considers “orthodox,” but which most Christians have never really studied:

“It’s very important that we watch out for Satan and his advances. The enemy will do everything in his power to get you to focus your attention away from God. In a society where so many are driven by acquiring wealth, power and status, Satan wants you to believe that obtaining these things will bring you happiness and completeness. This is completely false.”

We can excuse her for not providing proof of this, because all believers know it to be true. However, in her next statement she brings up rejection of a so-called “orthodox” doctrine, as a means that Satan allegedly uses to deceive disciples of the Lord. Unlike the issues she has already mentioned, few believers have ever studied so-called “orthodox” doctrines; and, if they have, they probably have not considered any in-depth studies that are critical of these doctrines.

Those who accept something as scriptural on the basis of having been told it is so by someone they trust are not engaged in faith; they're engaged in assumption. Their “belief” merely assumes the truth of the “orthodox” doctrine. Well, in a sense such notions are faith. But, they are faith in tradition, not faith in God; it is trust in teachers, not trust in Christ.

Notice how clever Miss White is, in her attempt to make sure her readers remain twice the children of a burning garbage dump as herself. When speaking about Satan, she says:

“He also wants you to believe that hell doesn’t exist, not only because it puts us in a mental place where living a life of sin is acceptable but also because he wants to put us at odds with God.”

Here's the truth: Satan revels in the fact that millions of Christians believe in hell. Not only because it paralyses them with irrational fear (the fear their faith might not be the saving kind, and that their sins will result in them suffering unspeakably obscene torture for eternity), which consequently causes them think they might as well relax and enjoy their favorite sins; but, because also it causes Christians to blaspheme the everlasting love and grace of God and to belittle the cross of Christ.

If Satan wants people to believe that hell doesn't exist, then why did he promote belief in hell among the Egyptians at a time when the Israelites themselves did not believe in it? That's right! The first time in history, when we are introduced to the idea of dead people who are actually alive, but in a different realm, where those who were wicked in this life are tortured in flames upon death, is in Egyptian mythology.

Read the Old Testament. You may see the English word, “hell,” in some versions of the Hebrew Scriptures (the best translations do not have the word “hell” anywhere in the Old Testament); but, you will find no doctrine of hell in the Old Testament. The doctrine of everlasting torment, called “hell,” was the invention of the Catholic denomination's “saint” Augustine.

Are we to believe that, when God told Adam that the penalty for his disobedience was death, that he was enjoying a fiendish joke, knowing that, to Adam's surprise, when he died he wouldn't really be dead at all, and that, instead of death, Adam would be tortured for thousands upon thousands of hours, and after that, he'd continue to be tortured for thousands of thousands of days, and then, after that, the torture would continue for thousands and thousands of weeks, and then for thousands upon thousands of years. . . And that, in fact, the torture would never end? Since God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19; 1st Samuel 15:29; Hebrews 6:18), we can rest assured that Adam is actually quite dead, unaware of anything (much less torture).

“For the living will know that they shall die: but the dead know nothing, and there is no longer any reward to them; for their memory is lost.”

— Ecclesiastes 9:5 (Brenton Septuagint Translation)

“Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the [b]spirit will return to God who gave it.”

— Ecclesiastes 12:7 (NASB 1995)

“Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals.”

— Ecclesiastes 3:19 (NIV)

When the breath of God leaves a man and returns to Him, man ceases to be a living soul. He knows nothing, he can neither praise God (Isaiah 38:18) nor curse him, it is as a dreamless sleep (1st Kings 11:43, 22:50; Job 14:10-12; Psalm 13:3; Daniel 12:2; Luke 8:52-53; John 11:11-14; Acts 7:60; 1st Corinthians 15:6; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).

The Egyptians passed their doctrine of hell on to the Greeks, from which the Catholic schism got it. But, they also passed the doctrine on to the Arabs, from which Mohammed obtained it. Thus, we find the staunchest proponents of the Doctrine of Hell are not the various denominations of the body of Christ, but the false teachers of the so-called religion of “peace.”

Are we to believe that God inspired Egyptians and Arabs to have well-developed notions of hell, but never said a word about it to any Old Testament patriarch, prophet, or priest, and that Satan could not disuade heathen nations from belief in the torments of hell? Are we to believe that Satan can't convince Mohammedans that hell doesn't exist?

Miss White goes on to exult what she apparently views as the greater power of Adam to “break” mankind, and the superior strength of the will of man to resist what she clearly views as God's impotence to actually save. She also seems to praise the notion that God has a perversely fiendish penchant for nasty eternal surprises; for, if the Catholic/Protestant/Mohammedan doctrine of hell is true, it will certainly be a nasty surprise to millions of faithless Israelites who lived prior to the “good news” of God's (heretofore unrevealed) everlastingly failing mercy. In her view, it seems that man must have redeeming qualities as a prerequisite to salvation (namely, that man must have enough goodness, wisdom, and will to be saved). Listen to her utter twaddle:

“How could a God who loves us so deeply send any of his children to a place of such torment? While hell is just as real as heaven is, God doesn’t send us there. Our complete brokenness does. God does everything He possibly can to keep us away from hell.”

Miss White's God is pathetic. He does everything He can; but, he's just no match for the will of man to resist even His best efforts to save him. Her Christ is quite inferior, too. He's just not able to save as many as died in Adam, or He just doesn't want to. Isn't that something?

Miss White says nothing to prove that her Boogeyman (hell) is real. She just assumes it is, knowing that most of her readers are irrational and fearful in the ignorant belief they share with her, that God hates some people as much as he loves others.

I am not going to try to persuade you that hell is not real, even though I am entirely persuaded that it is complete nonsense. Nevertheless, search as you will, the notion of eternal torment formed no part of any proclamation of any gospel message anywhere in the New Testament. And wherever you find the word “hell,” coming out of Jesus mouth in English translations of Scripture, with one exception, it is always as a warning to people who believe in Christ, and not to the unbelieving Jews. And, even the one exception really isn't a warning so much as it is a rebuke (Matthew 23:15).

For the sake of argument, let's assume hell is real, that it actually is the teaching of Scripture. Miss White has offered zero evidence that God does not send people there, or that people send themselves there. That idea is asinine on the face of it. Until the 19th century, most of unbelieving humanity never heard of hell (think Asia, India, Africa, South America, and nearly all of North America); so, how could they have sent themselves to hell?

Now, here's something that actually is undisputably just as real as heaven: the Lake of Fire. It is a terrible refiners furnace, in which many legitimate servants of Jesus Christ, genuine spiritual virgins who are sincerely anticipating the Lord's return, and authentic ministers (so-called “priests” and “pastors”) of Christ's assemblies, will suffer (Matthew 18:28-35; 25:1-12 & 26-30; Luke 12:42-48).

And while the Lake of Fire is real, no one sends himself there, either; everyone who goes there is sent there by Christ! It is the second death; but, it will end, when that which is filthy, useless, and carnal is burnt away from polluting the images of God that suffer its torments, when at last Jesus conquers the last enemy (1st Corinthians 15:26).

Miss White says that, if we go to hell, “Our complete brokenness” is what sends us there. But, how did we become broken in the first place? Miss White, I'm sure, believes that we ourselves are responsible for that; but, as I mentioned earlier, this is not the teaching of Scripture! Here's what the Scriptures actually say about mankind's brokenness:

“The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: ‘Come, go down to the potter’s house, and there I will let you hear my words.’ So I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel. The vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand. . .”

— Jeremiah 18:1-4

“for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope.”

— Romans 8:20

“But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”

— Galatians 3:22

When a Potter is making a vessel, and it becomes spoiled, marred, ruined, or defective, it's because of one or two reasons:

a. The clay is of low quality

b. The Potter applied too much pressure at the wrong time.

The apostle, Paul, is explicit in telling us that man was not a willing participant in his having become subjected to futility, saying that all have been imprisoned under the power of sin. Our sinfulness is part of God's plan. The responsibility for sin lies with Him, not us.

Will we be called to give an account for our deeds? Yes. Will we be punished for our wicked deeds, or rewarded for our good deeds? Yes! But, whether good or evil, we are not responsible for our deeds.

We have been marred, ruined, spoiled while still in the hand of the Potter. We have been subjected to vanity, not willingly; but, by Him who subjected us. We have been imprisoned by Scripture under the power of sin. And whatever good we do, as disciples of the Lord Jesus, it is Christ in us that does them (Matthew 10:20; Galatians 2:20; 1st Corinthians 15:10; 2nd Corinthians 4:7).

If we assume that hell is real, then Miss White's assertion that “God does everything He possibly can to keep us away from hell,” is asinine to anyone who truly knows the love and power of God. And anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the Scriptures should have an understanding of the power of God, even if they don't yet know his love. So, in 2000 years, how many people has God permitted Christ to stop in their tracks, and to call to them from heaven, to save them from their sins? Only one that I've ever heard about (Acts 9:3-16).

God does not appear to be doing anything at all, at this time, to save most of humanity. Nevertheless, God is in the process of reconciling all men to Himself through Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:17-19; Colossians 1:13-20). But, God does not do everything He possibly can to achieve this goal; He does everything he has, in ages past, determined He would do to save all men — and He will not fail.

Miss White goes on, returning to the obvious, which in this essay, merely serves as a distraction. Hell seems to be the real issue that she wants to drive home; and now, without having provided any evidence that hell is real, she wishes to move away from that issue before her readers have time to think critically about it:

“In addition, Satan wants you to believe he’s more powerful than God in hopes that you will lean on your own understanding, not God’s.”

This, of course, is just stupid. How would a person believing that Satan is more powerful than God lead him to lean on his own understanding? Wouldn't it cause him to lean on Satan's understanding? Isn't this what we see the whole world doing, now, with the so-called “science” that a few, select organizations and most governments are promoting as god? People are leaning on the “science,” rather than common sense, personal research, and rational analysis of facts, experience, and what they're being told.

Miss White continues:

“He wants you to hear his voice, which manifests itself in the form of stress, confusion, addiction, even depression, instead of talking to God and trusting that all things are possible through Him.”

But, while this is true, it's really pretty basic stuff. It has nothing to do with the question, “How Did Lucifer Fall and Become Satan?” or the subject of “Where things really went wrong.” But, it undoubtedly gets readers to think about something other than how she hasn't provided any evidence for any of her most important assertions. Miss White offers more filler to keep her readers distracted:

“If you believe God doesn’t have your back, Satan believes you will turn to him.”

Miss White talks like a fourth grader. This is complete rubbish. Although the day is fast approaching, when Satan will expect people to turn to him, this has not been his focus for the better part of 2000 years! Very few people turn to Satan when they turn from God.

I'm going to skip ahead in Miss White’s essay, because most of the rest is just more irrelevant, very basic, fourth grade religious primer type stuff that has nothing to do with the stated topic of her essay. It's not even an application of her unsubstantiated claims about how Satan became evil:

“God promises eternal life and salvation for those who believe.”

I believe two apples, when added to two other apples, equals four apples. So, I guess I have eternal life. Right? What if I believed in Zeus or some other false god? Does God promise eternal life and salvation for that? Or, maybe teaching what God actually promises is important, as well as providing evidence of the truth of it for those who are ignorant.

The fact is, although it is true that those who believe in Jesus Christ are promised immortality (Romans 2:7; 1 Corinthians 15:53-54; 2 Timothy 1:10), the Scriptures never promise “eternal life,” in those words. Every instance in which “eternal life” is mentioned in English versions of the Bible, the original Greek speaks of æonian life or ageistic life (life pertaining to the age). This can easily be seen in more literal translations (for example, the Concordant New Testament, Young's Literal Translation). While immortality is promised, the focus of the New Testament is life for the coming kingdom age.

The rest of Miss White's remarks are irrelevant to the subject of how Satan became evil, so I'm not going to pursue an examination of them. Rather, I'd like to conclude this review of her godless, albeit traditional views, by showing the significance of Satan in God's eternal scheme to create a family for Himself.

We have seen that it was necessary for God to have an adversary, in order that contrast and opposition might be provided for the development of appreciation of His goodness as well as the development of righteousness in His children. Likewise, for this reason it was important for man to be created from dust, as carnal or fleshly, earthly beings that lust after the flesh.

Adam and Eve, like Satan, were never morally perfect beings. If they were, why did they never eat from the Tree of Life? Every Christian theologian acknowledges that the Tree of Life was Christ. So, why didn't Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Life and live “forever”?

The answer is because, Adam and Eve were not spiritually perfect. In fact, they were not even especially spiritual. They were created carnal, as soulish or soulical beings:

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

— Genesis 2:7 (KJV)

Yes, God breathed a spirit into man, and the binding of that spirit to the dust that is man created a living soul. So, man because he is made from the dust of the ground is earthy, dusty, slimey, clayish, mundane. But, the apostle Paul tells us:

“And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

— 1 Corinthians 15:45-50 (KJV)

The Tree of Life (Christ) didn't appeal to Adam and Eve because it was heavenly and they were earthly. Otherwise, surely they would have eaten from it. Indeed, Adam had time to name many animals before Eve was created; but, he never found time to eat from the Tree of Life.

If Adam and Eve were created spiritually perfect, the Serpent's temptation would have been resisted:

“But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.”

— James 1:14 (NKJV)

“For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.

— 1 John 2:16 (NKJV)

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food [that's the lust of the flesh that John listed first, in the verse above], that it was pleasant to the eyes [the lust of the eyes he spoke of second], and a tree desirable to make one wise [the pride of life he mentioned lastly], she [was drawn away by her own desires and enticed, as mentioned by James, and so she] took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

— Genesis 3:6 (NKJV)

So, we see that, even before Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, their souls were earthly, not heavenly; they were of the world and not of the Father. Indeed, if God wanted to create spiritually perfect children, he wouldn't have made them from the dust of the earth; he would have given them spiritual bodies:

“There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

— 1 Corinthians 15:44 (NKJV)

God wants children who aren't just spiritual, but who are “mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil (Hebrews 5:14 NASB 1995). Adam and Eve gained a knowledge of good and evil; but, they were neither mature nor discerning; moreover, they were not spiritual.

Adam and Eve needed a savior even before they ate the Forbidden Fruit; but, they were unaware of their need, or of their unacceptable nature, until they ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Satan was necessary to necessary to help them overcome their fear of the consequence of eating from the tree, so they could realize their nakedness (their unacceptable state as fleshly souls, and their need to be clothed with the righteousness of Christ); thus Satan has been God's tool, to provide opposition and contrast ever since. God does not tempt men; but, he did create Satan; in part, for this very purpose (Job 1:8-12).

0 notes