A Question on Satan

  • Thread starter Thread starter IamCarl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Probably not, JAG. The Dictionary of the Bible by Fr. McKenzie says of this that it is “. . .most probable that this is a fragment of an ancient myth incorporated by the author as a prelude to the story of the deluge; it is similar to the Greek myth of the Titans. The pre-Israelite inhabitants of Canaan are elsewhere identified with the Nephilim (Num. 13:33 and other gigantic beings (cf. ANAKIM: REPHAIM).”

The Jerome Biblical Commentary has this to say: “The lack of any narrative connection with the preceeding accounts show that this ancient legend has been adapted only in a most general way to the theology of prehistory. Details cannot be pressed. The inspired author’s contribution. . .stresses the growing estrangement of man from God. Whatever the precise meaning of the primite story (a common mythological theme), it is unlikely that the author intended any special meaning. . .”
A remnant from some teachings from my childhood I guess…(don’t mean to detour the subject so let me know if you think I am…but) nephilim in its original language doesn’t mean angel or anything like that? Interesting…what does it mean that it is a remnant of ancient myth similar to the Titans? Are they saying that part of Genesis is just myth? if that is true then how are we take any of it “literal”?

And I have to say that I always took for granted that Satan was the serpent…so to have that idea questioned is new to me. It is interesting though to think about. Satan is only mentioned a few times in the Old Testament, yet the Israelites must have believed that he existed correct? He was mentioned in Job as well as Zechariah. Baalzebub and Azreel was also mentioned which are other names for Satan, but no account (that I could find) that describes how he came about. However, I was always taught that it happened at the beginning of time (after God created the angels) that Satan and a good portion of the angels left (called fallen angels) and came to earth to reign until Jesus’ second coming. I never questioned, but always assumed it to be true…😊
 
What Evan said. Just to add a bit:
  1. Those who enjoy the Beatific Vision (Heaven) can no longer sin; those in Hell cannot reform.
I am curious about this particular response and why you have concluded it. The “inability” to sin implies to me the inability to choose, a lack of freedom and, therefore, an inability to love. The situation of the saved is substantially different than that of those in hell who, I agree, cannot reform. The reason they cannot reform is that having chosen hell, they can no longer choose to love, since it would be impossible to distinguish between that choice and self interest (the sin that in the end cannot be forgiven).

Unless you can convince me here, I would hold in favor of eternal freedom. In other words that the saved will always be free to choose to turn away from God. Their orientation toward God, a matter of their choice, would also therefore reflect their love for God.
 
A remnant from some teachings from my childhood I guess…(don’t mean to detour the subject so let me know if you think I am…but) nephilim in its original language doesn’t mean angel or anything like that? Interesting…what does it mean that it is a remnant of ancient myth similar to the Titans? Are they saying that part of Genesis is just myth? if that is true then how are we take any of it “literal”?

And I have to say that I always took for granted that Satan was the serpent…so to have that idea questioned is new to me. It is interesting though to think about. Satan is only mentioned a few times in the Old Testament, yet the Israelites must have believed that he existed correct? He was mentioned in Job as well as Zechariah. Baalzebub and Azreel was also mentioned which are other names for Satan, but no account (that I could find) that describes how he came about. However, I was always taught that it happened at the beginning of time (after God created the angels) that Satan and a good portion of the angels left (called fallen angels) and came to earth to reign until Jesus’ second coming. I never questioned, but always assumed it to be true…😊
That’s a good and faithful assumption to make, JAG. 🙂

I actually agree with you regarding the use of the term “myth” in application to the Scriptures, whether Old or New. I just quoted what the “experts” had to say, but don’t have any real insight into who or what the “Nephilim” are. It’s interesting, though, that the literal translation of “nephilim” is “abortions”. 🤷 Haydock’s Commentary, a very orthodox one, sees them as the general population before the Flood, men given over to their passions, choosing as they will among the fair women.

haydock1859.tripod.com/id333.html

Regarding the serpent of Genesis, yes, it’s definitely an odd reading of the text to see it as a literal serpent and not the Enemy - whether as depicted in the guise of a Serpent or not.
 
I am curious about this particular response and why you have concluded it. The “inability” to sin implies to me the inability to choose, a lack of freedom and, therefore, an inability to love. The situation of the saved is substantially different than that of those in hell who, I agree, cannot reform. The reason they cannot reform is that having chosen hell, they can no longer choose to love, since it would be impossible to distinguish between that choice and self interest (the sin that in the end cannot be forgiven).

Unless you can convince me here, I would hold in favor of eternal freedom. In other words that the saved will always be free to choose to turn away from God. Their orientation toward God, a matter of their choice, would also therefore reflect their love for God.
In Heaven our free will acts perfectly to choose the Good (as opposed to acting imperfectly when we choose the not-good). IOW, we were created to choose the good, not to choose the bad; the Fall damaged our ability to use our free will perfectly. This article by Fr. Saunders addresses the question:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FRWILL.HTM

I think Father’s last quote from St. Thomas regarding the choice of the good angels as they behold the Beatific Vision really gives us a good insight into the perfect use of our free will in choosing the Perfect Good before us, a choice that will not change because of our perfect attraction to and perfect choice of the Beatific Vision.
 
Do Christians know they have authority over Satan and his co-horts? I don’t think many know this. You see, we have authority to use the name of Jesus, and he must flee from us.
Peace, Golfjack
 
In Heaven our free will acts perfectly to choose the Good (as opposed to acting imperfectly when we choose the not-good). IOW, we were created to choose the good, not to choose the bad; the Fall damaged our ability to use our free will perfectly. This article by Fr. Saunders addresses the question:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FRWILL.HTM

I think Father’s last quote from St. Thomas regarding the choice of the good angels as they behold the Beatific Vision really gives us a good insight into the perfect use of our free will in choosing the Perfect Good before us, a choice that will not change because of our perfect attraction to and perfect choice of the Beatific Vision.
Father Saunders wrote this:
Therefore, while we retain our free will in heaven, we naturally choose to love the Lord.
This is not the same as saying we will be *unable *to reject the love of God. Adam enjoyed the pristine perfection you have depicted, and yet freely chose to reject the love of God. Perfection does not imply a lack of freedom. Love, on the other hand requires freedom. The coin of exchange between God and man is love.

As to St. Thomas’ analysis that the angels in response to the beatific vision cannot sin would apply to the angels. The conditions of the existence of angels and the existence of man are different.

I would give this much - that enjoying the beatific vision, we have the advantage of a knowledge of the entire history of sin and salvation. We therefore have perfect understanding of the results of rebellion. It ought to be easier then to keep faith with him.
 
Do Christians know they have authority over Satan and his co-horts? I don’t think many know this. You see, we have authority to use the name of Jesus, and he must flee from us.
Peace, Golfjack
GJ, the word of faith movement was effectively annihilated by this book: Christianity in Crisis by Hank Hanegraaff
amazon.com/Christianity-Crisis-Hank-Hanegraaff/dp/0890819769

He is no friend to Catholics, but he did an exhaustive job at destroying each WOF teaching point by point.
He effectively revealed the ‘man behind the curtian’ of televangelism.
 
Jas, It would be a cold day in hell before I would pay any attention to Hank H. He hardly speaks for anyone anymore. There have been reports that he doesn’t believe in the Son of God anymore.
Peace, Golfjack
 
Jas, It would be a cold day in hell before I would pay any attention to Hank H. He hardly speaks for anyone anymore. There have been reports that he doesn’t believe in the Son of God anymore.
Peace, Golfjack
LOL. Attack the messenger because you dont like the message. Amazing, and pretty closed minded. I said he is no friend to Catholics, but I will give credit where credit is due. The documentation and research he did on the subject was excellent. I personally dont like the guy, even when I was Protestant, he’s arrogant. But nevertheless I will praise him for the work he did on that book. And NO ONE has been able to properly refute it. Why do you suppose that is? BECAUSE HE USED THE ACTUAL DOCUMENTED QUOTES of the people you support.
You know, the nazis were pretty upset at Frank Capra back in the 40s for his ‘Why We Fight’ docs for the same reason. He just used THIER film and THIER words. They hung themselves.
The word of faith movement is considered heresy even within Protestant circles, by far more people than the ‘Bible Answer Man’. It does not represent historical Protestant theology. These are people on YOUR side of the Tiber.
This alone should show you of the holey (as opposed to holy) boat Protestant theology rests on.
Why not get back into boat that has sailed for 2000 years?
 
Father Saunders wrote this:

This is not the same as saying we will be *unable *to reject the love of God. Adam enjoyed the pristine perfection you have depicted, and yet freely chose to reject the love of God. Perfection does not imply a lack of freedom. Love, on the other hand requires freedom. The coin of exchange between God and man is love.

As to St. Thomas’ analysis that the angels in response to the beatific vision cannot sin would apply to the angels. The conditions of the existence of angels and the existence of man are different.

I would give this much - that enjoying the beatific vision, we have the advantage of a knowledge of the entire history of sin and salvation. We therefore have perfect understanding of the results of rebellion. It ought to be easier then to keep faith with him.
“Saints have their will fully conformed to the Divine will even as regards the things willed”. . . “For the perfection of a man’s happiness requires him to have whatever he will, and to will nothing amiss: and each one wills with a right will, to know what concerns himself. Hence since no rectitude is lacking to the saints, they wish to know what concerns themselves, and consequently it follows that they know it in the Word.” (Summa Theologica, q. 72, art. 1).

Further, since Heaven is the place of complete beatitude, to live in that beatitude with a knowledge that this beatitude can be lost is not beatitude (anxiety has no place in Heaven). Further, the theological virtue of Hope does not exist in Heaven, since one has arrived at that for which one has hoped; therefore, one cannot Hope not to choose against God, but, rather, lives in that beatitude with the knowledge that one has in perfect freedom chosen eternally for God. Further, free will in Heaven (or in Hell) is not a consecutive act (choosing from one moment to the next) but an eternal one, thus it will not change once the choice for or against God has been made. (Though the conditions of angels and man are different in their existence - and the circumstances of their choice -, in their choosing the free choice is essentially the same.)
 
“Saints have their will fully conformed to the Divine will even as regards the things willed”. . . “For the perfection of a man’s happiness requires him to have whatever he will, and to will nothing amiss: and each one wills with a right will, to know what concerns himself. Hence since no rectitude is lacking to the saints, they wish to know what concerns themselves, and consequently it follows that they know it in the Word.” (Summa Theologica, q. 72, art. 1).

Further, since Heaven is the place of complete beatitude, to live in that beatitude with a knowledge that this beatitude can be lost is not beatitude (anxiety has no place in Heaven). Further, the theological virtue of Hope does not exist in Heaven, since one has arrived at that for which one has hoped; therefore, one cannot Hope not to choose against God, but, rather, lives in that beatitude with the knowledge that one has in perfect freedom chosen eternally for God. Further, free will in Heaven (or in Hell) is not a consecutive act (choosing from one moment to the next) but an eternal one, thus it will not change once the choice for or against God has been made. (Though the conditions of angels and man are different in their existence - and the circumstances of their choice -, in their choosing the free choice is essentially the same.)
I see nothing in the first quote that implies a lack of freedom, but rather addresses the wishes (or free will) of the saints.

As to the second analysis, confidence or assurance is not the same as loss of freedom. In your view, perfection has man becoming a puppet of God. If one is not free to reject another, one cannot be said to love another. That one does not will to reject another, rather than implying a lack of freedom, implies that love exists between the two. To say that one will not sin is not the same as saying one cannot sin. And in eternity out of time there can be no consecutive act, but there can also be no now and then. The choice is made once for all time, but is made an infinite number of times for all time also.
 
I see nothing in the first quote that implies a lack of freedom, but rather addresses the wishes (or free will) of the saints.
Of course there is no implication of a lack of freedom, that is far from the point since true freedom is finally and actually being enjoyed in Heaven. To be “fully conformed” means that the Saint has been so confirmed in grace (possible in this life as well) as not ever to desire to be separated from that conformation to God’s will. That is true freedom: the will, as I said previously, freely acting eternally in its choice of love.

If being confirmed in grace (as the Apostles were, and as was St. Thomas Aquinas) is possible in this life (though a grace rarely given), such a confirmation to the nth-degree is that which all the Saints enjoy as they enjoy the Beatific Vision.
As to the second analysis, confidence or assurance is not the same as loss of freedom. In your view, perfection has man becoming a puppet of God.
Confidence and assurance of God’s grace (not the assurance of our persevering in it) are for this life, not for Heaven. Eternal blessedness does not make man a Puppet, but a Child of God Who freely loves and knows that this Love will not be taken from Him because the One in Whom he has hoped has brought Him safely Home.
If one is not free to reject another, one cannot be said to love another. That one does not will to reject another, rather than implying a lack of freedom, implies that love exists between the two. To say that one will not sin is not the same as saying one cannot sin.
Sorry, but that’s nonsense vis-a-vis Heaven. Heaven is ALL Love - not sometime love, sometime not-love. Our time of rejecting or accepting, loving or not-loving is now. In Heaven (or Hell ) that test is over and the rewards (or condemnation ) are forever and irrevocable.
And in eternity out of time there can be no consecutive act, but there can also be no now and then. The choice is made once for all time, but is made an infinite number of times for all time also.
There is no time - or times - in Heaven. I’m not saying that the free will of the Saints in Heaven isn’t essentially a mystery, but it cannot be such that allows for a change of heart in those who have persevered to that Good End.
 
Sorry, but that’s nonsense vis-a-vis Heaven. Heaven is ALL Love - not sometime love, sometime not-love. Our time of rejecting or accepting, loving or not-loving is now. In Heaven (or Hell ) that test is over and the rewards (or condemnation ) are forever and irrevocable.
Oh I understand that heaven is ALL love. But sin did not arrive as a test or the failure of a test. Sin arrived because of the rejection of God’s love. The nonsense is that love can exist in a situation other than the voluntary participation of the lover and the beloved. If it were so, then no original sin, as I am also informed Eden was pretty spectacular as well.
There is no time - or times - in Heaven. I’m not saying that the free will of the Saints in Heaven isn’t essentially a mystery, but it cannot be such that allows for a change of heart in those who have persevered to that Good End.
And I am disputing the last sentence. What you did say is that having received the beatific vision one cannot sin. I am still waiting for a coherent explanation as to the manner in which one cannot sin and yet is free to reject God’s love, or the manner in which one can love and yet not have the freedom to choose otherwise. And I am continuing to offer that it is not possible.

If you are saying that a yes said in eternity is an infinite yes, then I would agree in as much as the yes is not said once forever but is said infinitely forever.

However it seems clear to me that the human being is both a material and spiritual being and the vision of perfected humanity is a new heaven and a new earth. I would read this as a reestablished Eden. And there again, as in the original Eden, sin was and is possible.
 
. . .However it seems clear to me that the human being is both a material and spiritual being and the vision of perfected humanity is a new heaven and a new earth. I would read this as a reestablished Eden. And there again, as in the original Eden, sin was and is possible.
The New Covenant in Christ is far greater than what Adam and Eve enjoyed before the Fall. To think that sin is possible in Heaven - or on the New Earth, demonstrates a lack of understanding of this and of the Beatific Vision with its certitude of the Blessed never falling from that Vision. I’m sorry I haven’t been able to make clearer to you that the mystery of one’s free will as it is exercised in Heaven does not leave open the option of actually negating that free will by returning to the slavery of sin (every sin in this life is such a negation). These few quotes from the Catechism (there are more) regarding free will and eternal life make it clear that eternal blessedness is just that: eternal.

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

1053 “We believe that the multitude of those gathered around Jesus and Mary in Paradise forms the Church of heaven, where in eternal blessedness they see God as he is and where they are also, to various degrees, associated with the holy angels in the divine governance exercised by Christ in glory, by interceding for us and helping our weakness by their fraternal concern” (Paul VI, CPG § 29).

1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere “to the end” and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for “all men to be saved.” She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven: Hope, O my soul, hope. You know neither the day nor the hour. Watch carefully, for everything passes quickly, even though your impatience makes doubtful what is certain, and turns a very short time into a long one. Dream that the more you struggle, the more you prove the love that you bear your God, and the more you will rejoice one day with your Beloved, in a happiness and rapture that can never end.

1709 He who believes in Christ becomes a son of God. This filial adoption transforms him by giving him the ability to follow the example of Christ. It makes him capable of acting rightly and doing good. In union with his Savior, the disciple attains the perfection of charity which is holiness. Having matured in grace, the moral life blossoms into eternal life in the glory of heaven.

969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. . . .
 
Wow. There are so many responses that it is hard to address them all. I thank you all for continuing this discussion. All of it is very interesting.

I agree with FCEGM that eternal blessing of life is in fact eternal and can never be taken away (Mat 25:46, Mrk 10:17, Jhn 3:15, Jhn 6:54, Rom 2:7, 5:21, 2 Tim 2:10, Tit 1:2, Heb 9:12, 9:15, 1 Jhn 5:13); therefore, once the saints are saved, their eternal blessing cannot be taken away from them, else you call the Lord a liar. And thus therefore, the saints cannot sin once they are raised to glory, since sin is an affront to God, which he will not tolerate. We know also that peace shall be in the Kingdom (Isa 9:7, Rom 14:17, 1 Cor 7:15) and we know that there is peace in Heaven because the Lord is the God of Peace (Isa 9:6, Rom 15:33, 16:20, 1 Cor 14:33, 2 Cor 13:11, Phil 4:7, 9, 1 Thes 5:23, Heb 13:20). The whole point of Christ was to be a mediator (Job 33:23, 1 Tim 2:5, Heb 9:15, 12:24) to bring man close to the Father and be saved from eternal damnation. If saints can sin and fall away again, then Christ is rendered to no effect.

I believe the point of why Adam and Eve were not permitted to eat of the fruit of Life was because they would live eternal in their sinful state. First this sinful state must be cast off and then they can be made to live eternal. The only way to rid ourselves of this nature and the curse of death that comes with it is through Christ Jesus. Thus, saints cannot sin. And if saints who are likened to the angels cannot sin, then angels themselves cannot sin, for they are the intermediaries of God.

I will perhaps present this fact that those of God bear the name of God (El and Yah (or Jeh)), though many perhaps know this: EL-ohim, Micha-EL, Gabri-EL, Nathani-EL, Isra-EL, Ezeki-EL, Dani-EL, EL-ijah, EL-isha, Samu-EL, Jo-EL, Isai-YAH, YAH-shua, YAH-sus, Zachari-YAH, Mic-YAH, Jeremi-YAH, Emanu-EL etc. These were of the angels and of the prophets and men who performed the will of God. Could they perform the works of God if God was not with them. Even the other name of Jesus (Emanuel) means the Lord with us and Jesus (a form of Joshua) means the Lord saves. So if the Lord is so with these that He is in their very label or name, how could they err against Him in their duties? I am not saying that the prophets were indeed perfect (they were men with sin in the flesh), but the Scriptures they wrote are indeed perfect. Thus, angels or saints who have been given incorruptable (Acts 13:34, Gal 6:8) bodies cannot corrupt them through sin (Isa 38:17, Hos 9:9).

This does not mean that love is restrained; love is in fact restrained in slavery by our sinful flesh (Jhn 8:34, Rom 6:6-22). We would love more because we are not focused on the things of the flesh, which sin resides (Rom 7:5, 7:25, 8:3), but the things of the spirit (Rom 8:5, 15:27, 1 Cor 2:10-15, 9:11, Gal 5:17) which gives love (Gal 5:22, 2 Tim 1:7, 1 Pet 1:22). Out of free will in faith we love the Father (Gal 5:6, Eph 6:23, 1 Tim 1:5), but when we are exalted to glory, we no longer need faith, for He is with us, and that love is perfected (1 Jhn 4:12-18). Concerning free will of angels, they have free will but cannot go against the Lord or sin (sin is restrained).

I will try to explain why I think that spirit in all uses is the force that drives things, people, nature, etc. Please ask me if I do not explain myself thoroughly. The Hebrew word translated spirit is Ruwach which means the movement of air or wind (an invisible force) and is figuratively used as a mindset or a driving force (rather than a supernatural bodily form) such as a leaf blown by the wind. The “good” spirit (ruwach) of the Lord (Yahweh) was taken out of Saul and the evil (rah - troublesome, wicked) spirit (ruwach) of the Lord (Yahweh) given to Saul (1 Sam 16) was that of depression and paranoia which drove him to hurl spears and try to kill David on many occassions. Now these spirits were both given and taken away by the Father Himself! Not of any evil supernatural power.

It seems that it came to pass that mental infirmities or malaties were called “evil spirits” or rah ruwach by the Israelites. This was the continued practice in the days of Jesus, but they also had a new word it seemed from the Greeks called daimon (demon) that was probably introduced during the time of Alexander the Great when he conquered the land. Now the term “demon” seemed to be used almost interchangeably with “evil spirit” (Mat 8:16, Luke 8:2). And from Scripture we know that an evil spirit was treated the same as any infirmity or illness (Luke 7:21, 8:2, Acts 19:12) but also, one need only look at the symptoms of those who had these “demons” or “evil spirits” to know that they had serious mental disorders.

Now spirit in the new testament is pneuma in Greek. The pneu- prefix means simply air or lung and -ma suffix means action. Think of the word pneumatic meaning powered by the movement of air. Thus, pneuma is exactly like the word ruwach meaning simply, the movement of air or wind and figuratively means an invisible force driving or moving something… for example, a leaf (us) on the wind (mindset). Isaiah 64:6 emphasizes this point: “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind (ruwach), take us away.”
 
Even the very definitions of spirit (it does list common supernatural beliefs as well) say this to be so: 1. an attitude or principle that inspires, animates, or pervades thought, feeling, or action; 2. a divine, inspiring, or animating influence; 3. the heart as the seat of feelings or sentiments, or as prompting to action; 4. excellent disposition or attitude in terms of vigor, courage, firmness of intent, etc.; 5. temper or disposition; 6. the dominant tendency or character of anything; 7. the general meaning or intent of a statement, document, etc. The word spirit originated in 1200-1250 from the latin spiritus. Spir- means a breath or air and -tus means an action. Thus again, spirit is indeed the right word for pneuma and ruwach which means the movement of air (also related to breathing). We use the phrases even today when we say “Who has team spirit?” What is another name for alcohol which has an affect on the mind and changes the very character of a person? Spirit. So why do people try to make spirit into a supernatural being?

When the Scriptures talk of the spirit of meekness, the spirit of love, the spirit of truth, the spirit of lying, the spirit of life, the spirit of jealousy, the spirit of wisdom, the spirit of burning, the spirit of judgment, the spirit of justice, the spirit of Egypt, the spirit of consel, of might, of knowledge, of understanding, of deep sleep, of humility, of living creatures, of Chaldea, of harlotry, of Zerrubabel, of Joshua, of man, of infirmity, of an unclean demon, of bondage, of gentleness, of faith, of promise, of mind, of error, of prophecy, of Christ, of the Holy God, then why do people take that to mean supernatural beings? These are dispositions of the mind that drive people to do good or evil (Eze 11:5, Rom 8:5, 6, 27, Phil 1:27, 2 Thess 2:2, 2 Tim 1:7). If you put on the spirit of Christ and of the Father, who are one in this spirit, you will do good (Rom 8), and we indeed know that we must have many spirits (the good ones I listed above) all in all with one spirit, that of the Holy Father and of His Son Jesus Christ.

To answer about the nephilim, no one knows who they were. They were possibly mutations through human imbreeding (abominations or abortions) or actual giants (such as those of the Philistines), but be aware that we are giants compared to the height of those that lived only a few hundred years ago let alone a few thousand years ago. If you look upon the remains or the raiments of those times, you will see how people were quite commonly shorter than they are today. Shaq would have definitely been considered a giant.

Wow. I know this is long. I was away for a while and tried to address everything I have read so far with what I think the Scriptures are saying. You can probably see how I am confused about how there can be a supernatural devil. If I am wrong, please reveal the truth to me with the Scripture, for it is the Word of the Lord in Truth which I cling to for salvation.

Thank you so very much.

Carl
 
The New Covenant in Christ is far greater than what Adam and Eve enjoyed before the Fall. To think that sin is possible in Heaven - or on the New Earth, demonstrates a lack of understanding of this and of the Beatific Vision with its certitude of the Blessed never falling from that Vision. I’m sorry I haven’t been able to make clearer to you that the mystery of one’s free will as it is exercised in Heaven does not leave open the option of actually negating that free will by returning to the slavery of sin (every sin in this life is such a negation). These few quotes from the Catechism (there are more) regarding free will and eternal life make it clear that eternal blessedness is just that: eternal.
Ok. I understand the concept of eternity as well as the concept of freedom in my own admittedly deficient way, but definitely in line with what you have included from the Catechism. So. from your more informed position, where in what you have so generously cited does it indicate one cannot sin in a next life? I didn’t read it there.
 
Wow. There are so many responses that it is hard to address them all. I thank you all for continuing this discussion. All of it is very interesting.

I agree with FCEGM that eternal blessing of life is in fact eternal and can never be taken away (Mat 25:46, Mrk 10:17, Jhn 3:15, Jhn 6:54, Rom 2:7, 5:21, 2 Tim 2:10, Tit 1:2, Heb 9:12, 9:15, 1 Jhn 5:13); therefore, once the saints are saved, their eternal blessing cannot be taken away from them, else you call the Lord a liar. And thus therefore, the saints cannot sin once they are raised to glory, since sin is an affront to God, which he will not tolerate. We know also that peace shall be in the Kingdom (Isa 9:7, Rom 14:17, 1 Cor 7:15) and we know that there is peace in Heaven because the Lord is the God of Peace (Isa 9:6, Rom 15:33, 16:20, 1 Cor 14:33, 2 Cor 13:11, Phil 4:7, 9, 1 Thes 5:23, Heb 13:20). The whole point of Christ was to be a mediator (Job 33:23, 1 Tim 2:5, Heb 9:15, 12:24) to bring man close to the Father and be saved from eternal damnation. If saints can sin and fall away again, then Christ is rendered to no effect.
The question is not if the “blessing of life” can be taken away, but rather can it be thrown away by the recipient.

I would rather say that saints will not sin, and then we can all agree. I would further say that whether they can or not has no bearing on the value of Christ’s sacrifice. One could just as likely say if his closest companions could sin after having lived and eaten with him Christ’s sacrifice was meaningless, and one would be wrong in both cases.

What creature with free will derived from intellect did God create that could not sin? Not the angels. Not man, even in his perfect state. And I would venture not Our Lord either, who, the temptation in the desert demonstrates, could Himself sin had he chosen to.

What is changed by the beatific vision is the effects of original sin, wherein the desire to sin lies within us.

Finally, as I have already given, if what is trying to be said is that on entry to eternity one says yes for eternity, then I could agree as well in as much as there is not then and now in eternity. That yes would be a yes repeated infinitely for all eternity. This is not the same as saying one cannot sin, but does say one will not sin and chooses love an infinite number of times.
 
Ok. I understand the concept of eternity as well as the concept of freedom in my own admittedly deficient way, but definitely in line with what you have included from the Catechism. So. from your more informed position, where in what you have so generously cited does it indicate one cannot sin in a next life? I didn’t read it there.
It seems to me to be implicit in the understanding of eternal life being precisely that. Now, how it is so remains a mystery, “tied-up”, so to speak, with the mystery of the Beatific Vision; that it is so seems not to be a mystery, in my estimation - for what it’s worth. I do see, though, that “all will never”, e.g., may be a more suitable way of expressing it than “cannot”, although the result is the same. 🙂
 
So why do people try to make spirit into a supernatural being?
Carl, a book you would find very helpful as it relates to the Nature of God (Who Is Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is Frank Sheed’s Theology for Beginners; although the book is definitely Catholic in all aspects, the section on the Trinity expresses the belief of all orthodox Christians. It would alleviate your difficulties regarding Scripture’s use of “spirits” and “Spirit”.

amazon.com/Theology-Beginners-Francis-Joseph-Sheed/dp/0892831243
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top