[soc.religion.christian] Is Satan a God?

kamphau@oktext..sbc.com (Mark Kamphaus) (06/05/90)

>In article <May.23.23.31.49.1990.17338@athos.rutgers.edu> ii44@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
>> Satan is capable of taking any good thing that God created and turn it
>> to evil purposes: he has done so with every emotion that God made for mankind
>> to use for good.  Love, pain, anger, kindness, compassion (although Satan I
>> think may have a difficult time with this one)...
In article <May.29.04.41.54.1990.4189@athos.rutgers.edu> jeffjs@ihlpb.att.com writes:
>Alas, Satan has quite an easy time with that one, so much so that he made
>distorted compassion the major component of the "in" psychological/addiction
>problem of recent years, most commonly known as "codependency".

{text on codependency deleted}
>So you see, Satan is, alas, highly ingenious, since he can even spoil "the
>milk of human kindness".  But no matter how clever he is, Christ is greater --
>and Christ is in us!  That being the case, we have all the strength, love,
>joy, peace, power, wisdom, and anything else we need to annihilate Satan's
>influence over our lives.

I see a trend here that I would like to see more fully discussed.
1) Who is responsible when man sins-man or Satan? 
(Is "blaming" Satan a way of avoiding guilt?)
2) Is God Omnipotent (Why can't he stop Satan from interferring)
3) Is Satan deified by such claims as above ( An equal but opposite "god")

1) I believe that man is responsible, not Satan, for the evil that man does.
This doesn't mean I don't believe in temptation, but that I do believe
that Satan cannot make me sin.  My Sin, as is explained in James, is from
my own desires to do evil.  My "lusts" grow into action and then sin and
finally death.  Satan only tempts us and we do the rest.  Man can also be
guilty of leading people astray.  There is "sin" implied during the 1000 yr
reign of Jesus because his ruling with an iron rod, and justice being carried
out swiftly. During this time Satan is bound.  Man is only tempted by himself
and other men. As man does not seem to like to be responsible for his own 
actions, it would seem to be convienant to have someone else to blame.
If man does not feel responsible, then he doesn't have to do anything to make
amends. (see below) The only way for the "milk of human kindness" to get
spoiled is if I put it out of the 'fridge!'

2> I believe God is omnipotent.  Biblical examples of Job and Peter show that
Satan must ask permission before temptation takes place. We pray that God
"lead us not into temptation..."  It is in Gods Plan that Man be refined.  This
means being subjected to discipline.  (another way this could be viewed is that
God allows Satan to Expose mens sins forcing the man to become repentent and
turn to God, or to expose his wickedness to others so they won't be decieved.)

3> Satan was created along with all the other angelic host.  He fell because he
desired to be as God.  We are told that God created "vessels bound for 
destruction" but has not yet destoryed them because he uses them to make His
power known. We see this motif in the Amalkites, which instead of
fire and brimstone, are destroyed in an act of faith
by Moses. IMO, giving Satan these attributes does describe him a a god. He 
seems unrestricted and does whatever he desires.  God must overcome his schemes
to get man saved. That type of reasoning seems amiss. 

gdr2f@boole4.acc.Virginia.EDU (George D. Randels) (06/07/90)

In article <Jun.4.23.22.14.1990.15524@athos.rutgers.edu> wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes:
>
>   I agree with C. Wingate; the problem with 'liberal' protestants is not
>that they have denied tradition, it is that they have abandoned 'Sola 
>Scriptura' (Not to mention Sola Gratia and Sola (What's the word for faith?
>Fide?).  Too msny are committing Adam's sin: substituting their own sense
>of 'right and wrong' for God's revelation.  You can't criticize modern day
>advocates of the three Sola's (principally confessional Lutherans, IMHO) 
>for the errors of those who have abandoned that confessional standard 
>(including, regrettably, some who still call themselves Lutheran).  How many 
>churches are adding 'experience' to scripture?  How many are implicitly adding
>'science', or 'psychology'?  How many pick and choose scripture to fit the
>fashion of the age?

What do you mean by substituting one's own sense of right and wrong for God's 
revelation?  Certainly scripture and Christian teaching through the ages
leaves room for conscience in interpreting scripture.  Paul says that one
should follow conscience (a person's own sense of right and wrong) when
scripture is subject to interpretation for guiding conduct.  If your conscience
convicts you for eating meat sacrificed to idols -- then don't do it, for you
would sin.  But if your conscience tells you it is ok, that as long as you are
thanking God for it.  Eating this meat does not NECESSARILY violate the command
against worshipping other gods.

As for adding things like experience, or science, or psychology, doesn't Paul
say that he agrees with the Greeks as much as he can, but then puts the
gospel of Christ on top of whatever beliefs they may have.  What's wrong
with using the language of science, psychology, or experience to get the
gospel message across?  You have to use whatever language people are using.
The early Christians used Greek (or whatever language the community used).
If the vocabulary of science is in use by our culture, we should use it to
bring out the gospel message.  What John Howard Yoder has to say on this
point (in _The Priestly Kingdom_) is quite interesting (and quite right, I
think).

--

--
George Randels
University of Virginia
Dept. of Religious Studies