SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Who are the sons, what is the devil doing there?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

Brother Ron wrote:

Quote:
True regeneration does effect genuine sonship. The 'new born' has no one between himself and his father. The 'life' did not pass through another but came direct from the father. In this sense Adam was a 'son of God'; the life came directly from God, but Cain and Abel were not, they came through Adam and were, consequently, Adam's sons.



In particular the thought, "but Cain and Abel were not, they came through Adam and were, consequently, Adam's sons" speaks to why the Scriptures speak of being "Adopted." We who become heirs with Christ are adopted into sonship. The angels who have obeyed from the beginning of time do not need to be adopted.

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/10/25 15:55Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Ron,

Quote:
The 'new born' has no one between himself and his father. The 'life' did not pass through another but came direct from the father. In this sense Adam was a 'son of God'; the life came directly from God, but Cain and Abel were not, they came through Adam and were, consequently, Adam's sons.



So then are we talking about 'life' in terms of [i]breath[/i] or [i]nature[/i] or both?

In the original question we were dealing with "sons of God". In terms of the 'life' which all the angels apparently received directly from God they are "sons of God"; but in terms of their nature it at some point fell into Sinfulness they would seem to be children of the Devil, (i.e. you are of your father the Devil and the lusts of your father you will do, etc. ) So [u]S[/u]in at some point had to have entered the angels also, yet they retained the name "sons of God." To me this almost has to lay to rest the issue of Genesis 6 as being angels. It is that or Sin enters man at his first act of disobedience.?


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/10/25 16:10Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
We who become heirs with Christ are adopted into sonship.

Indeed we do, but the scriptures set forth very different aspects of God's work in us through the pictures of regeneration and sonship (adoption)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/10/25 18:19Profile
dohzman
Member



Joined: 2004/10/13
Posts: 2132


 Re:

Bro. Rahman, You're just radical :-) ! I Pray the Lord blesses you through this whole endeavor. God Bless Bro. Daryl


_________________
D.Miller

 2005/10/25 18:24Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
So Sin at some point had to have entered the angels also, yet they retained the name "sons of God." To me this almost has to lay to rest the issue of Genesis 6 as being angels. It is that or Sin enters man at his first act of disobedience.?

There is something quite unique about our race. Angel's did not have sin 'enter' into them as a result of Satan's sin but as a result of their own. Each angel seems to have sinned personally and uniquely. Adam's sin spread to Eve but there is no indication of sin spreading from one angel to another; there is no generic/genetic link. (I am not talking about literal genes, but 'angelic genes'! I think we can condidently say that they is the first reference in history to 'angel genes!! :-D If it becomes popular just remember that SI had it first!)

I am just talking about sentient, intelligent life - not otherwise specified. Each angel received this life at the same moment from an initial creation. There is only one generation of angels. Just as there is only one generation of the 're-generated'. Phrases like 'the coming generation' or 'the next generation' have no meaning for 'sons of God'; there is just one generation of 'sons'.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/10/25 18:27Profile
Compton
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732


 Re:

Quote:
I think we can condidently say that they is the first reference in history to 'angel genes!!



I had to google this idea and wouldn't you know it...

[url=http://www.0wned.org/~dook/angel.html]Learn about Angelic genome[/url]



_________________
Mike Compton

 2005/10/25 20:10Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I had to google this idea and wouldn't you know it...


Thanks Mike,
You've got too much free time on your hands! He's thinking of angel-genes in a slightly different way but, nevertheless, I was pipped at the post! I shall have to seek fame by some other route!

The Book of Enoch, for those who are still following this and who may have followed MC's hyperlink, was a Pseudepigraph. (ah, you say, I though it was!) Pseudepigraphy was a device used in ancient times to give credence to literary works. If you agreed with Isaiah and believed you were correctly interpreting Isaiah you might bring out a book said to be written 'by Isaiah'. In some instances is was an act of respect to a greater and earlier authority, in other instances it was plain forgery.

The Book of Enoch WAS NOT WRITTEN BY ENOCH. It comes from the period in between the OT and the NT when Judaism was going through a 'mystical' period. The myths and legends that they invented were astounding. (See [url=http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/appen13.htm]Jewish Angelology[/url]) The Book of Enoch is dated about 200 BC and has absolutely no link with the Enoch of the Bible.

Some say, but Jude quotes from it with apparent approval. Indeed he does, and Paul quotes from heathen poets praising Zeus with 'apparent approval' in Acts 17.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/10/26 4:23Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

Brother Robert wrote:

Quote:
So Sin at some point had to have entered the angels also, yet they retained the name "sons of God." To me this almost has to lay to rest the issue of Genesis 6 as being angels. It is that or Sin enters man at his first act of disobedience.?



Where in Scripture does it say that those angels who chose to disobey God were still called "sons of God?"

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/10/26 10:59Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:



"Man has become as one of us, to [b]know good and evil[/b]..."

I believe that man was given over to know evil that comes from the spiritual work of Satan. Prior to Adam's choice to disobey God's command, Adam knew only good. The Holy Spirit dwelled in him. The moment he became naked, was the moment which opened one door and shut another. Without God's Light of Life man was given over to the tempter.

In Zechariah 3 we see that Satan had once held Joshua in bondage, but Christ freed him from that bondage.

Zech. 3:1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. 2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

The angels have the same choice as was given to man. Obey God or choose the lake of fire.

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/10/26 11:16Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4792


 Re:

In terms of whether Scripture speaks of men being called "sons of God,' Paul writes in Roman 8:

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

I checked this verse out in the concordance and did not see the word "children' or "child" used.

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/10/26 11:26Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy