December 11, 2003
Thoughts on the Devil
I’m reading through some of the writings of the Early Church Fathers and I came across this passage by Saint Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage from 246 to 258 A.D. when he was martyred. I thought it was an excellent explanation:
It is not persecution alone that we ought to fear, nor those forces that in open warfare range abroad to overthrow and defeat the servants of God. It is easy enough to be on one’s guard when the danger is obvious; one can stir up one’s courage for the fight when the Enemy shows himself in his true colours [sic]. There is more need to fear and beware of the Enemy when he creeps up secretly, when he beguiles us by a show of peace and steals forward by those hidden approaches which have earned him the name of ‘Serpent.’ Such is ever his craft: lurking in the dark, he ensnares men by trickery. That was how at the very beginning of the world he deceived and by lying words of flattery beguiled the unguarded credulity of a simple soul; that was how he tried to tempt Our Lord Himself, approaching Him in disguise, as though the could once more creep upon his victim and deceive Him. But he was recognized and beaten back, and he was defeated precisely through being detected and unmasked.
May we all be able to recognize and unmask the devil when he tries to beguile us.
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
You do not need to [sic] words that use the British spelling rather than the American...
Posted by: Tim at December 12, 2003 4:39 PMPoint well taken, Tim.
Posted by: Jay at December 12, 2003 4:55 PMSOME OF YOU SHOULD BE GLAD ABOUT THE DEVIL. BECAUSE WITHOUT HIM ON US ALL THE TIME WHERE WOULD WE BE. SOME OF US WOULDNT EVEN PRAY NOR BE HELPFUL TO ANYONE. WE WOULD GIVE THE LORD SOME SORRY WORDSHIP. WITH OUT DEVIL WE WOULD FORGET HOW TO PRAISE GOD. WHAT WOULD KEEP OUR FAITH GOING IF THERE WERE NOT NO CHALLENGES FROM THE DEVIL.
Posted by: HOLLOWAY at January 7, 2004 5:21 PMSOME OF YOU SHOULD BE GLAD ABOUT THE DEVIL. BECAUSE WITHOUT HIM ON US ALL THE TIME WHERE WOULD WE BE. SOME OF US WOULDNT EVEN PRAY NOR BE HELPFUL TO ANYONE. WE WOULD GIVE THE LORD SOME SORRY WORDSHIP. WITH OUT DEVIL WE WOULD FORGET HOW TO PRAISE GOD. WHAT WOULD KEEP OUR FAITH GOING IF THERE WERE NOT NO CHALLENGES FROM THE DEVIL.
Posted by: HOLLOWAY at January 7, 2004 5:21 PMjay,
satan doesn't have to disguise himself to attack anyone, even though that is one of his best tactics. all he needs is God's permission to attack anyone who is "covered", unless that person is being tested by God. God can call down hardships and trials on a person to test their faith, if He wants. when God called together the Sons of God, satan was there in Heaven with God and he said that no one was able to endure the temptations and rebellion of the world, nor righteous enough to withstand his attack, and God let him attack Job. satan couldn't harm his soul, but he inflicted the worst attack known to mortal man on one person and Job of course survived it because he wouldn't lose his faith. when satan tried to tempt Jesus, he knew what he was doing but Jesus used the Word of God against him and he fled. satan is the most beautiful and wisest of the angels and the world is his dominion. when anyone is ever tested by him, all they have to do is pray for God's mercy, use the Word as a sword and flee. Ephesians 6 says to put on the full armor of God and be prepared for satanic attacks at all times. so if you know what your weakest link is, pray and dress accordingly, because he is out here.
Paul
Posted by: Paul Baccus at January 8, 2004 5:31 PMSo Paul, where in the Bible does it say that Satan was the most beautiful and wisest angel? Or was this some private revelation you received? Just curious.... I agree with you on this and I know where this teaching comes from, do you?
Joe
Posted by: Joe at January 8, 2004 9:49 PMjoe,
yes. it comes from Ezekiel 28:12-19 as lament for King Tyre from Ezekiel but for the believer it was a full description of satan depicting his rise and fall. this matches teachings in Genesis 2:25 & 5:2, Isaiah 14:13 and Revelation 4:1-16, 21:15-21 also, how about you, where have you studied this?
Where does it state that the prince of Tyre is Satan? Read the rest of book of Ezekiel...he is prophesying against multiple cities. I know the parallels that exist in this book of the Bible but where does it clearly state that Satan was the most beautiful and the wisest? Bye the way Tyre was an actual city.
In Christ,
Joe
actually joe,
since we're reading out of a book of prophecy that God reveals so much, this is the only text that i have personally found where satan's description is found and it is compared to the reign of the king of Tyre and the king of Babylon in Isaiah. the other concordances in Genesis 3:1 and Revelation 4:1-11 shows use his craftiness and his awesome beauty in the throne room of God. basically i'm set on the conclusion that it is really him and like Jesus, god is reveling this info to those who can see. where did you get your info from?
Still Paul it is personal intrepretation. I could say "no that passage from Ezekiel is not referring to Satan but rather only to the King of Tyre" and strictly from a biblical prespective I would be correct, for the passage says the King or Prince of Tyre not Satan.
In reference to the rank of Satan, it is purely part of a Catholic tradition that has been handed down through the ages. Several of the Early Church Fathers reached this conclusion based on Satan's name, Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12), which indicates that he was the Light-bearer or the "Day Star, son of the Dawn". Although his former rank in heaven has never been definitively defined by the Catholic Church, this has been widely believed by Catholics throughout the centuries. Yet in truth, we really do not know what his rank was within heaven prior to the fall of the angels. It is something assumed, and rightfully so, considering that Satan is always referred to as the leader of the fallen angels.
Ultimately, this is just another example of a certain oral tradition that has been adopted by non-Catholic denominations and/or individual Christians.
In Christ,
Joe
mmmm..... God the Father of parables!
Posted by: Paul Baccus at January 13, 2004 9:57 AMJoe,
Maybe my post is wasted or will fall on deaf ears? So be it. I think that the apologists for
both sides on this BLOG do not consider the
others point of view.. Your post above just confirms the Catholics have a lot in common and
agree on many points with the Protestants and that we have reached this concensus through the power and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who indwells and Guides ALL Believers..
We are so quick to Judge the other camp and
above all we want what we believe to be the
truth. This BLOG has caused me to do more study
and to research more scripture then I have ever
done in the past. I think this is a good thing.
The Catholics see the reformation as being of
Satan and Protestants see it as being from
the Holy Spirit... It's a matter of perspective.
If you look at Chruch History and if you are honest you would have to admit that the first 1500 years of the church weren't exactly perfect.
The crusades and the Spanish inquisition. The
Selling of indulgences.. The list goes on...
IMHO I feel this was due to the arrogance of the
Church leadership falsely believing that every
doctrine and practice they did was from God
just because it came from the person sitting
on the seat of Peter and the Magestirum...
Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail
against his church.. He did not say that there
would not be false teachers and false teachings creeping into His church.. Just that His church would prevail in the end...
On the contrary - there are multiple scriptures
of Warnings by Jesus and by the apostles to
beware of false teachers who were so crafty that they would even fool the elect..
These warnings were to the church about false
teachers in the church. The Protestant church
did not exist at the time of these warnings so
it had to be taking about the church Jesus created in Matthew 16:18....
Yet the RCC apologists on this blog refuse to concede the possiblity that some error and
incorrect teaching may have crept into the church. They refuse to ignore the clear warnings
of Christ and the apostles that there would be
false teachers and teachings in the church.
What was the first sin. The sin of Satan...
It was pride... And Pride is alive and well in
the RCC. They fall back on their interpretation
of Matt 16:18-19 as a guarantee that they can never be wrong. That their teachings are infallible. Please show me a scripture where
it clearly states that the church would be infallible ??
To be fair there are a lot of wrong teaching and Pride in the Protestant churches too... At least they are willing to concede that they are not infallible..
I think there is a lot of Good things and a Lot of Good doctrines that came from the Catholic church. I am not writing it off or saying they are the bad.. I am merely sayibg that their teachings are not infallible ..
Now feel free to discredit eveything I have just
posted and to point out my error and heretical
thinking. That is the typical response I receive
from Jay and others on this BLOG.
In search of His Truth,
Clem
Posted by: Clem at September 10, 2004 11:12 AMjust want to comment on the use of Satan as the king of Babylon.. The pssage in isaiah that is given is in FACT, a quote from an ugaric passage! (remember, Paul quoted a poem regarding zeus about God and transfered characteristics from zeus to God) same thing....
That particular poem, "O Helal,thou son of the morning..." comes from Ugaritic (Babylonian) literature. Helal was a particular 'god' in the Ugaritic parthenon who rebelled against
El (just much like Satan did at the dawn of time against our God). Isaiah was using it as a prophetic and literary pointer to the type of punishment the King of Babylon was going to suffer. That he would fall like Helal in their literature was evident.
Hope that helps all in understanding typology.. the isue with teh king od Tyre is trhe same thing, we have the king of tyre and we have the prince of tyre... They are used as types, pointers... the porphetic discussion is literal but it also offers a deeper meaning.. (almost all of the old testament passages regarding Chrsit are this second meaning also, there was a literal understood by the prophets then and there wsa the symbolic which it pointed to. The SYMBOLIC is where it really counts. the literal stuff is usually fulfilled to point to the symbolic. (as a parable sort of) It teaches us a greater mystery that s hid.... So , in fact, there was a king of tyre, but the story is given in such a way to also talk of an underlying spiritual reality....
Clem: to be fair with your opinion, you are right that the leadership has failed many times. as a Roman Catholic, I am not ashamed to be honest with history. around the turn of the first millenia, the church had reached it's worst place, with the vatican being a shorehouse for illicit sex, Priests got married in those days. A woman and her generations caused 4-5 popes to make it to the chair of peter in succession, all ungodly men, all blasphemed the God on high. Solomon, sa head of israel, sitting on the throne of David, (Christs), sinned greatly, multiplied wives, etc.... became idolatrous and caused israel to do the same, (the split of the northern and southern houses were prophecized to happen because of Solomon's sins), so we have to be spiritually honest as "catholics".. However, the reformation wsa not as holy spirit breathed as you think. IF one was a beast, (catholicism), the other wsa "another beast" taht rose.. Many of those who left or were forced to leave got involved with church/government and thru their government powers, cused the french revolution and other things, the battle of the religions. ALSO, the number of people involved in the reformation, (you will know them by their frutis, right, a test of the holy spirit in their midst, isn't that right??), the protestant reformation, with all the greats like Calvin and others FAILED to GROW. the original initial numbers remained STATIC in Europe while catholicism replaced their numbers lost in a matter of a few generations... IF we are to study history, lets not just study protestant history ho are just as biased to hide things as some catholcs are of hiding some of the errors taht happened.. If we all search for truth, then we ought to be honest.
BTW, priests are celibate BECAUSE of the whoredoms that occured at the turn of the first millenia. I don't CARE what any cattholic apologetics individual says, they are WRONG... Celibacy wsa only part of a monastic order of priests who chose to remain celibte as Paul admonishes us to do and it wasn't til the disgrace of the first millenia and the sins of the leadership that caused the successors to finally make it a rule that all priests are to be celibte, (so no one woman or clan would have that much control over the papacy again) This is TRUTH, we have to be HONEST as catholics so we can understand. BUt with all that, Chrsit wsa still preached and people SAVED, even with that....
people were under covenant while Solomon ruled, while the pharisees ruled, the gospel still went out in the OT form (pre-fulfillment), there wsa ALWAYS A REMENANT OF GRACE SAVED, ALWAYS.
DArk periods of church history, old testament or NEW does not mean that God is still not with his people in the midst, a GRAVE ERROR PROTESTANTS love to harp on..... GRAVE ERROR.
Posted by: carmine at December 8, 2004 10:42 AM
