Leaderboard

How do we know that some of the angels who - at first - fell for Satan's lies, did not later return to the Father? The Father would have forgiven them, I think. Only at the cross, when Satan and His crew committed premeditated torture and murder, did they cross the line and close their probation. When was Satan cast out completely and permanently - to the earth? Book of Job tells of Satan attending a council before the Father. Later the NT says that Satan was no longer allowed to accuse the saints before God.

In the following 39 minute video, Mark Finley discusses the "Even At the Door" video by David Gates.

Hey my friend I never want to put you on the spot! ? What I will do is look for it online and if I find it (I'm pretty sure I will), then I provide it and make a comment on them as well. How's that? You know I got your back always!? Blessings!

lol ??

I believe it essential to understand that God loves us - that the Cross was God's message of that love. I believe it essential to understand that one needs saving. I believe it essential to understand that our Creator has a law, and we have sinned against that Law. And that's why the world is in a mess. To sin against God's law, is to sin against Him. Why even think you need saving, if there is no law or standard? I believe it essential to understand that one cannot simply repeat prayers for forgiveness, without any intent or effort, to repent of known sins - like some gangster with a priest on retainer.

I believe it essential that one believe in the virgin birth of Christ, that He was the Son of God, His actual physical death by crucifixion, that He was raised to life, that He intercedes for the sinner, that we may come to "the Father" in His name.

I agree that Jesus died to save all of creation. The flaw of anyone thinking that they did not (or don't continue to) sin eliminates their need for a savior is purely delusional. Speaking for humans, all have sinned and fallen short of the mark; and we're likely to continue sinning until we are changed. So anyone who thinks they don't need a savior will be mighty surprised at the Judgement.

Legalism is deeply ingrained in our thinking. Your post here is a very good post, but still is tainted with the deep legalism that is ingrained in our thinking. We subconsciously believe that while those who sin or in the above quote, close to sin, are saved by righteousness by faith, people have a tendency to feel that those who have not sinned are saved by their perfect works and thus don't need redemption nor righteousness by faith. We tend to feel that if Adam and Eve did not sin that their works would have saved them. But eternal life is ALL and ONLY Jesus. Whether it be for you and me, or for Gabriel. When you and I cast our crowns at Jesus feet and sing "Worthy is the lamb" and other praises to Jesus, Gabriel is not going to stand wearing his crown and singing "Worthy am I". And while deep inside we know this, we still hold on to the mindset that anyone who did not sin are saved by their won works and without thinking about it we tend to initially react to surprise to the idea that Jesus also died for the unfallen.

Cup of salvation ?

5 Things You Probably Didn't Know About Moby Dick On November 14, 1851, Herman Melville published the whaling adventure Moby Dick. While the book is considered a classic now, it wasn't always so well-received. Here are five things you didn't know about Moby Dick.... Be Careful Which Edition You Purchase When the book was first released, British editors decided to chop up the story, removing several parts and passages, including an epilogue. This was problematic, to begin with, but what made it worse was that the British edition was released shortly before the U.S. edition. It was not a great start in life for the story. Several editions of the chopped-up British version were printed, which added to the confusion. If you buy the book or check out a version from the library, make sure it has the epilogue and is the unabridged version. The Concept of Moby Dick Was Far From Far-Fetched Man going after giant whale seems like a legend now, but in the 1800s, when ships were the main form of inter-continental travel and whaling was common, an attack by a huge whale was not out of the ordinary. Certainly, some were very big, and Moby Dick itself is based on Mocha Dick, a giant sperm whale known to attack ships that were even a bit aggressive. But whale attacks weren't a rare thing, so the premise of the book wasn't fantastic at all. One of the Book's Characters Has Three Modern Namesakes The first mate on the ship in the story is named Starbuck, and both the coffee chain and the Battlestar Galactica character were named after him. However, that's kind of where the similarity ends, at least for the human namesakes. In the story, Starbuck was a common-sense employee who wanted to get back to his family. In the Galactica series, Starbuck was first a womanizer and adventurer, and second (in the more recent version) a soldier who later became a mystical figure. As for the coffee chain, one founder wanted to name it after Pequod, the ship in the book, but another founder did not like the idea of "Pee-quod" coffee. Instead, he went with the common-sense option of naming the chain after the common-sense first mate. Melville Was a Whaler Himself Talk about "write what you know." Melville himself had worked on a whaling ship and thus knew exactly how whales behaved, especially when under attack. He understood the dynamics necessary for the ship's crew to function on a long journey. However, he did do additional research, drawing details from books on whaling and Arctic environments. The Published Story Was Heavily Revised at the Last Minute British editing aside, Melville did his own revisions on the story at the last minute after meeting the author Nathaniel Hawthorne. Originally the book was to be an adventure story. However, after meeting Hawthorne and being influenced heavily by him—Hawthorne and Melville became great friends—Melville revamped the story entirely to focus more on the human cost in the tale.

The problem is, ... when you have been wrong a number of times and then keep prophesying, it is dangerous to keep listening to you. Some in the Bible reported God as saying something, the hearer listened, and they died for listening. So, once someone fails in their prophesying, anyone else is more than justified to not listen to you again. One is not obligated to keep falling into the mud puddles of your failures as part of a growth process. If it was truly a prophesy from God, it will always be right. To prophesy in God's name and then be wrong is to make God out to be a liar! Some will never understand, ever! "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand." - Daniel 12:10 Generally, studying prophesy should be done in groups. When you come up with your own interpretations, you are then violating Peter's statement that no prophesy is of a private interpretation. From what I have read, your interpretations are derived solely thru your own personal studies. I would be concerned to give serious consideration.

No we wouldn't. I'm sure there were angels on the fence - maybe even leaning towards satan's side until they saw satan's true plan - to overtake God and destroy humanity. Once they saw the enormous consequences of the evil they were doing, some of them repented and were forgiven. Some did not. Anyways, I'm just proposing certain scenarios here; throwing them against the wall to see if they stick. I don't necessarily believe everything I'm throwing out here - just trying to see what others think.

I agree!

In my opinion, the "boundary" that was violated, was the taking of multiple wives. God said that "a man" (singular) was to cleave unto his wife (singular) - not "wives". One man - one helpmate, is God's standard. The New Testament confirms this. For spirit beings to procreate with human women, that would mean they can change the very substance of their being (from spirit to flesh) at any time. Not just appear in human form, to look like humans - but literally become humans. That would mean those evil spirit beings incarnated, in a sense - into human flesh (as "adults" mind you - not to be born as an infant). Is this not diminishing the incarnation of Jesus, as if to say that incarnation was nothing special. Spirit beings have done it before.

JoeMo,, while I like a lot of what you wrote a couple of posts up, we would disagree on the ideas of Angels not being redeemed. It was created beings who needed redeeming. Jesus did not have to die for angels then die for the beings on planet earth then die for each and every one off the other planet where God has life Whether we commit acts of sin or not, humans have the sinful nature, but even without the sinful nature we still need redemption. Life comes from our righteousness by faith resting in God's love, whether for sinful humans or sinless angels. Jesus' death was not only redemptive for us but also for all the sinless angels. The only reason why it does not appear redemptive for the fallen angels is because they refuse to accept it. If they were to the father would greet them like the prodigal son.

{comics nerd} 'Wakanda', I think {/comics nerd}