Stephen Whitsett BA
Giving an orthodox apologetic answer for Preterism / Dispensationalism
Death Hell Satan
has-as-tan, When satan is described as an invention of non biblical sources and nothing more than a myth or invention of religion to scare the masses as some believe I challenged that assumption based on poor scholarship.
“I'm beginning to see the "satanic" not as a literal personal entity but rather as the inner diseased spirituality of people and institutions.
“Who slandered the 1st century Christians other than a mythical and esoteric mythological "fallen angel?"
R C Sproul stated : “The pendulum of popular belief about Satan tends to swing between two extremes. On one side there are those who believe that he doesn’t exist at all, or if he does exist. he is a mere impersonal evil “force,” sort of a collective evil that finds its origin in the sin of society. On the other side there are those who have a preoccupied fixation, a cultic focus of attention upon him that diverts their gaze from Christ.
Either way Satan gains some ground. If he can persuade people that he does not exist, he can work his wiles without being detected or resisted. If he can get people to become preoccupied with him, he can lure them into the occult.”
It was stated by a
Preterist; “It's an undeniable fact that the word "Satan" is not real. It's not in the Hebrew. It's not in the Greek. The mythological "Satan" that you cling to is a carryover from Babylon and Greek mythology.”
In truth the Hebrew word for satan from whence we get the word satan is found first in Job, which is attributed to being one of the oldest books of the Old Testament. (Which then makes his other statement; “He appears nowhere in the Bible until you get to eschatology.” also a lie.)
“On another day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them to present himself before him”.
Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex Satan: Transliteration; Satan
Patently we see this statement “The Greek and Hebrew NEVER use the word "the Satan" or "the Devil." That's just a fact” as an outright misrepresentation of the truth. When called out on this omission we get no response to the challenge but an accusation instead.
Job 1:6 KJV: themselves before the LORD, and Satan came
Job 1:7 KJV: said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered
Job 1:8 KJV: said unto Satan, Hast thou considered
In every verse the definite article (has) HE is used in front of “satan”
has•sa•an occurs 16 times in the Old testament.
“Your definition is completely flawed and shows you do not have a grasp of the Hebrew or the Greek.” Which means he is unable to provide the evidence otherwise. In his failed understanding Proper names had meanings, Joshua - salvation; Jacob -
supplanted” and so “satan” - adversary. The meaning in no way takes away the idea the person was not real but the name was given according to the nature of the person who bore the name.
The evidence I provided, even though copied and pasted come from reliable sources. The “antagonist” in this conversation would have us to believe the scholarship of Strong’s Thayer’s, Briggs is unacceptable because it has been published on the internet, yet makes claims of
“Young was the only one who came even close to translating it correctly, and even then he capitalized and made it a proper noun when it wasn't.” Meaning even the YLT can be found on the internet. What makes this quote also interesting he corrects Young as if he has some qualification and degree in Hebrew of which he has none. He clearly tries to imply satan is not used with the definite article or as a noun as nouns are capitalized as proper names.
In the New Testament satan is referred many time as “the” satan or “he”. IN Mathew 12.26 for example and by Christ: And if Satan casts out (the) Satan, he is divided against himself.
This person also claimed, “The Greek and Hebrew NEVER use the word "the Satan" or "the Devil." That's just a fact”
has-(as-?an), is the definite article for Satan which is a noun and it is capitalized in the Hebrew. Which also means “the satan” is found in the Greek manuscripts . I thes 2.18 -"HO" satan.. or "the" satan.
He states in our conversation “For instance, "You belong to your father, the devil." Is this word in the Greek a proper noun so as to be capitalized? Is the word actually "devil?" If you can answer those questions properly then that may be a start.
“Oh, and is it capitalized as a proper noun in the Greek or is that supplied based upon a presupposition?”
In the Greek the word “satan” and “diablos” can both be found yet he makes the argument the word “devil” cannot be found in the Greek. BY implication he is not accepting the very common understanding that “satan, “devil” Diablo” all refer to the same person and the names are interchangeable. Diablo is translated into English as “devil”.
“The biblical view of Satan is far more sophisticated than the caricature. The biblical images include that of an “angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14). The “angel of light” image indicates Satan’s clever ability to manifest himself sub species boni (under the appearances of good). Satan is subtle. He is beguiling. The serpent in the garden was described as “crafty” (Genesis 3:1). Satan does not appear as a fool. He is a beguiling counterfeit. He speaks with eloquence. His appearance is stunning. The prince of darkness wears a cloak of light.
A second image we have of Satan is that of a roaring lion who goes about seeking whom he will devour (1 Peter 5:8). Notice that the same figure that is used for Christ, the lion, is used by Satan, the archetype of the Antichrist. The anti-lion devours. The Lion of Judah redeems.
With both allusions to the lion we find a symbol of strength, though with Satan it is an evil, demonic strength. His strength is no match for Christ, but it is a strength that is certainly superior to ours. He is not as strong as Christ, but he is stronger than we are.” R C Sproul from the same paper cited above.
In N T Wright’s work of his new book “Paul and the Faithfulness of God” found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueegnOTz7qY&hd=1 discusses his belief in a “created being, a fallen creature or angel” as satan.
The obvious conclusion if you admit these men are “brilliant” and I come to the same understanding does not reveal my ineptness but my detractors their own ineptness. So when he says, “I understand fully. Believe me. I've done more actual research on this and study than you can imagine.” Shows you the ineptness of his work.
Then in the same breath they utter these fatal words;
“There certainly are. Letting go of false theologies is extremely difficult, especially when the "studying" we are doing is the regurgitation of those who erred before us”
“I really wish you were more capable of having an actual conversation about the text, but you aren't. You are one who regurgitates without a working knowledge of the text”
(still they provide no counter evidence based on the text but merely assert “I am wrong” as if that is evidence enough or that their own studying qualifies them to speak with authority. Yet this simple paper exposes their total lack of knowledge.”
So finally when boxed into a corner the “superiority” card gets played.
“I suggest you do some objective studying on the subject and you may one day be able to accurately have a conversation with someone. But as it stands, you're making yourself look extremely ignorant to everyone.”
The Bible confirms over and over again the reality of "satan" who is even blamed for the coming of
thru "lawless one" in 2 Thessalonians 2.8-9. Further evidence of "spiritual forces n heavenly realms" becomes a painful truth for some as we see even Jesus drove out demons from people and not healing them of some mental disease. A mental disease can not make a herd of swine run into the sea. When its accepted satan is a real being the argument then turns to whether ot not he has any authority. Paul calls him the "prince" of the power of the air. In Revelation 20 "satan" is released from his prison and is freed to act according to his nature and deceives the nations with his lies, so that even the elect might be deceived.
What is clearly understood is that satan authority over the believer is lost. He has none, but when it comes to NON Christians he has all power and authority over them. In Acts Luke tells the story of the seven sons of Sceva who try to cast out demons in the of Jesus who Paul preaches, :the demons response tells it all, "Paul I know, Peter I know but who are you?" and the demon set upon all seven men and drove them from out of the house.
A Christian has all authority over satan in being able "to bind" him, or prevent him from exercising authority over the believer. But binding is not "imprisonment" as Revelation describes happens during the thousand years. Revelation is specific to state, "he is thrown into a pit, and the top was sealed.....when the thousand years are over satan is loose from his prison" In no way would this imply the authority satan has over the believer is regained when satan is "loosed" as many are suggesting by claiming his imprisonment is just a binding.
According to Preterist theology satan is currently in the lake of fire and has been in the lake of fire since 70 AD but history proves out satan is still free and roaming this earth seeking whom he may devour.
When a person asked Ed Stevens; “Was satan already cast eternally into the lake of fire? If satan has been crushed, as is evidently the case from Preterist eschatology, why is he so active today?
If all of Revelation is fulfilled by 70 AD then he must be according to full
Preterist in hell suffering torment as scripture says. "And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” Rev 20:10
His answer; the “ruler of this world” was cast out and his dominion taken away. So what if he still exists? He has no real spiritual power over us now” .
Your right Ed his power over us was defeated but then by your answer there are two fatal flaws, he still is running around on this earth like a lion, seeking whom he may destroy, so you can't say he is in hell suffering torment with the beast and false prophet are, so you either call yourself a liar or scripture. Secondly then you admit Rev 20:10 has not been fulfilled.
Even Russell after his detailed exegesis of scripture, stated, “We must consequently regard this prediction of the loosing of Satan, and the events that follow, as still future, and therefore unfulfilled. We know of nothing recorded in history which can be adduced as in any way a probably fulfillment of this prophecy” .
Now what we call "hell" the place of burning judgment is the "lake of fire", Jesus compared it to the dump outside Jerusalem, Gehhenna, as a comparison for people to understand it is a place where the fire never goes out. Revelation call sit a place of eternal torment. Even Jesus spoke more of hell then of heaven. What many
Preterist refuse to accept is the bible teaches a "resurrection" of the sinner into a body where he will receive the recompense for deed done while in the body, meaning fire can't hurt a non corporeal being. A spirit can't burn, but the sinner is also resurrected with the "rest of the dead" in Revelation 20 and thrown into the lake of fire where they will burn for ever.
The lake of fire is not a place where they are destroyed as in "eternally permanent" fashion as some claim based on their feeling "god is not that cruel" God is the righteous judge and he declared it is fitting punishment to be thrown into a lake of fire where the person will exist in a state of suffering for all eternity for the rejection of the death of His son who died for them.
"Hell" is not annihilation where God "vaporizes" those who he created just because they rejected him. or "kills" their son because they rejected their father. He is specific to say they will "burn for all eternity", with out end. and yes the judgment is final, there is no Get out of Jail card after you have paid for your sin as no one can pay the price for their sin with anything less than eternity in "jail." If this was true then the Catholics are right about "purgatory".
Nor can we accept "universalism" where ever one is saved in the end. "it is appointed for man to live once" then face judgment, not go back and try again. Man can ony be saved by the atoning blood of Christ, if that is rejected there is no other way for man to be reconciled to God. There is one mediator between God and man, that man is Jesus Christ.
Salvation is a gift for all men to receive but they must believe in Christ in order to receive the free gift. It is just not given to every person automatically as what "universalist" believe.
IF the lake of fire is merely a symbol to reflect the horrors of separation from God the reality must even be greater than the symbol.
To imagine an eternity of emptiness and no hope of ever ending, knowing you rejected "God" as your current state is of your own doing with no reversal, no hope of recovery, or of any change in your condition for an eternity, is worse than any flames of fire that would distract my mind from what it could have been.
The complete absence of God will not be understood untill he is absolutely absent from your life except in memory.