2-1-28 Salvation Issues
Okay, so I have ten minutes. I don't know if I will use all of it, but we
will see. There are a couple of points I would like to begin with. One is, I
would like to correct some misunderstandings that were apparent earlier. For
one thing, I never said that the issue of where sin comes from is
irrelevant. I think it's very relevant. What I said was that the issue of
where the devil came from is irrelevant. As I indicated earlier I do have
some thoughts about the origin of the devil. Those are not set in concrete,
nor do I believe it is really important, because the Bible doesn't make any
issue out of that.
Let's see here, also we talked about Mark chapter 1,
I wasn't trying to imply that the spirit which led Jesus into the wilderness
was the devil. I believe the spirit there was the spirit of God. The point
was that the spirit of God led Jesus into the desert where God knew the
devil would approach him and tempt him. I stated that God wanted that to
happen. Incidentally, there was a great interesting point made that the
temptations of Jesus had a number of parallels to the Old Testament. There
is one more parallel I would like to draw out and that is, that there is a
very strong parallel between Jesus' temptations and the temptations of Adam
and Eve in the garden. If the first Adam was literally tempted by an
external force, who as I stated earlier I do believe was the devil, then it
logically follows that in this parallel passage in which Jesus was tempted,
he also was literally tempted by an external force.
A couple of other
random statements. For one thing, I am, I think there is a difference
between being convinced and turning it into a salvation issue. Let me give
you an example: personally, I am convinced that the Gospel of Mark was
written before Matthew and Luke were ever written, but I am not going to
make that a salvation issue. If you think that the Gospel of Mark was
written after Matthew and Luke, I think that's fine, I think it's pretty
irrelevant. Similarly, I am convinced that the devil teaches the existence
of a literal devil, but I don't consider that a salvation issue, briefly
addressing that point.
Also when I said earlier that the question of
Satan's being is irrelevant, I would clarify that. I wasn't meaning his
existence, what I meant was, his mode of existence is irrelevant. The
relevant point is that the devil exists.
Let's see, my point I believe,
about the use of the article in Hebrew and Greek, I think still stands.
Earlier it was suggested that was an interpretative marker, not so much a
linguistic marker. And yes, there is an element of interpretation there, but
still linguistically, I think, my point was never answered, that indeed
there is a great difference between the times when we find - and this I
think I can say as a statement right across the board - in the Old Testament
when you see the word 'satan' when it does not have, when the word 'satan'
in the Old Testament has the article, it always refers to the supernatural
adversary, and in the New Testament, when the word 'diabolos' has the
article, it always refers to the supernatural adversary. I believe that
holds true.
However, this one exception was pointed out from the
Septuagint in the 7th chapter of Esther in which once or twice Hadad is
called diabolos with the article. Of course, that is still consistent with
the principle of what the definite article means. The use of the definite
article means that you are talking about something which is well understood.
If you look at the context of Esther 7 there, in the Septuagint version of
Esther, you will see a great deal of emphasis is placed upon the wickedness
of Haman, and so that is why the article could be used, because Haman was
definitely the accuser of that context.
Now on the
other hand, when we look at other passages, similarly we would expect that
when the article is used, some well known frame of reference is in mind, not
just some unknown accuser, as for example in his book " Christendom Astray"
Robert Roberts talks about the temptations and says " We don't know who this
tempter was, we don't know who this accuser was." But Matthew and Luke both
use the article in that case. He wasn't saying a devil, as
Roberts seems to imply. He talks about the devil. What
devil? As I mentioned earlier, or perhaps alluded to, Christadelphians seem
to do a pretty good job of telling us what the Bible doesn't teach in many
cases, but not always a very good job at telling us what it does teach. And
the temptation stories are an example.
Aside from that, that's probably
all I have to say in conclusion. I've enjoyed being here. I've enjoyed the
discussion. I think it has been very fruitful and profitable, and thank you
very much.