The temptation was .....act independently of the will of the Father.
As the last Adam He did not fail. As the true Israel He brings in the new Exodus.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The nature of God's Kingdom
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
As the last Adam He did not fail. As the true Israel He brings in the new Exodus.
I know but they are so desperate to make Satan's claims legitimate rather then acknowledge that God is in control of the world, including Satan.
Jesus did indeed rebuke Satan; there is no denying that. But that is not the point.
The point to consider is that Satan offered to Christ the kingdoms of the world. He did and he could. They were his to rightfully offer Christ. If they didn't belong to Satan there wouldn't have been any temptation. As a man Jesus could and was tempted. The temptation was real. But there was no temptation if the kingdoms did not belong to Satan in the first place.
How do you view the doctrine of "inspiration" of the Bible?
The Holy Spirit inspired Luke to write exactly what God wanted recorded, and thus the events are recorded accurately.
God, being in control, is really a non-issue. That is not even the topic, but an excuse for not addressing the real topic. It is like many of the unsaved agnostics saying that:
"If God were in control He would not have allowed Saudi Arabia to execute 47 men yesterday."
"If God were in control He would not allow all the persecution of Christians that is currently taking place."
"If God were in control He would not have allowed: "Iran's Islamist republic arrest a group of Christians on Christmas Day at a house church in the southern city of Shiraz."
http://www.worthynews.com/22535-iran-arrests-christians-christmas
You have simply pushed God out of the picture and become totally agnostic in your thinking.
You haven't considered the Fall, man's sin and its consequences, God allowing evil and sin to take place on this earth, God allowing Satan to have his own reign on this earth.
God allowed Satan to have his way with Job. Read chapter one. What makes you think he doesn't allow him to have his way today, especially since Satan is called:
"the god of this world,"
"the prince of the power of the air,"
"the spirit that now works disobedience,"
1 John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
But in other translations:
(ASV) We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one.
(Darby) We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the wicked one .
(ESV) We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
God has allowed Satan to be the ruler of this world, and has allowed this world to lie in the power of the evil one or Satan. It is in the sovereignty of our Lord to allow this to happen because of the Fall of man, the Curse, and simply because God is God.
I'm not debating the accuracy of the Gospel account. I believe that Satan said exactly what is recorded. That being said , he is the father of lies so God is having the Gospel writers write his lies accurately. It's not the only time that we have people lying in the Biblical narratives. For example Ananias and Sapphira. Or we even have it in the Gospel with the guards being paid to say that the disciples stole the body.
If it's such a non issue you wouldn't argue so hard to the contrary.
Calling me agnostic, questioning my salvation are you?
Ironic that I see God completly in control even with all of the above stories and yet I'm agnostic.
None of the above surprised God, nor do they cause me to question His Sovereignty. He is working all things together for the good of the called and I can rest in His promise. A god who is twisting his hands because he has no control over Isis, is no god at all.
Key word Allowed. Satan can go no farther the God Allows. Why is that so difficult to understand. We are not in a dualistic world with Good and evil being equally powerful fighting against each other. God is the supreme ruler and there is none like Him.
How hard is it to understand that John uses the world to mean different things. It is clear that in his epistles when he says world he means world system, which is why friendship with the world is enmity with God.
It is just WOF nonsense to say that Satan gained dominion over the earth at the fall and that God has to gain it back somehow.
The earth is God's, and even Satan is under God's dominion.
Last edited:
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
1 John 5:19 is the 'we/they' comparison. It doesn't mean Satan rules the entire world and owns it. The lost are blinded and laden in wickedness. 'World' here does not include each and every person nor does it undo the fact that Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords having all power in heaven and on earth, Matthew 28:18. Those who are lost will remain in this wicked domain only as long as God wills it to be so, and each of His chosen will be transferred out of this domain, Col 1:13; John 10:27; John 6:37, 44, 45.
It is a very remarkable thing wherein we show Scripture proving Christ as reigning, yet how quickly some rush in to diminish or demolish those texts concerning Him and give Satan an undue amount of authority. Has that ever struck any other as odd?
It is a very remarkable thing wherein we show Scripture proving Christ as reigning, yet how quickly some rush in to diminish or demolish those texts concerning Him and give Satan an undue amount of authority. Has that ever struck any other as odd?
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Yes. And this has been noted.
I see this often enough.
His view is what I responded to in my response prior to this one. It is he who has pushed God out as he says.
You've made a sound argument for the case of God and His Sovereign reign and it is biblical. How correct you are that this theology is akin to that of WoF.
But now your argument must be undone and Satan must be placed in that stead. Watch, it will be exactly what happens, taking Scripture that glorifies God and giving Satan undue authority.
When a person reads these misguided posts it becomes apparent that what is missing is the victorious and perfect work of the Cross.
We are victorious In Christ.
I do not have to fear what Isis and other rebels do in rebellion against my Lord and King.
IT....has not been presumptuous, BW318 is not being an agnostic,I am not in the place of God, or a Pope despite these futile charges and accusations. We have seen these devices used before.
We are victorious In Christ.
I do not have to fear what Isis and other rebels do in rebellion against my Lord and King.
IT....has not been presumptuous, BW318 is not being an agnostic,I am not in the place of God, or a Pope despite these futile charges and accusations. We have seen these devices used before.
Last edited:
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Always the personal innuendos. Let's look below and see who is being presumptuous, boastful and silly:
In other words K&D use the same eisegetical hermeneutic you employ. Where in Scripture, from the Scriptures does it state she remained polytheistic? Answer that without twisting the text. There are multitudes of texts that refer to YHWH as Elohim, it is a common reference to God. Their argument is ridiculous and unsubstantiated so it's a given you would agree to it.
Let's look instead at what God said of her testimony, Hebrews 11 and the following:
for the Lord your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath; the Maker and Possessor of both; is the Governor of the whole universe, and does what he pleases in it; and disposes of all countries, persons, and things, as he thinks fit: this is a proof of her knowledge of the true God, and faith in him, and shows her to be a believer, and hence she is reckoned in the catalogue of believers, Heb_11:31; and her faith is proved to be of the right kind by the works she did, Jam_2:25. - John Gill (I fully expect you to attack this man of God with insults)
Pulpit Commentary also disagrees and shows there is no proof to the eisegetical mess that you take on as your own:
Lord your God, he is God. Literally, for Jehovah your God. (read on before you jump to one of your premature conclusions) This declaration, bearing in mind the circumstances of the person who uttered it, is as remarkable as St. Peter"s, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." How Rahab attained to this knowledge of God"s name and attributes we do not know. It is certain, however, that under the circumstances her knowledge and spiritual insight are as surprising as any recorded in Scripture, and are sufficient to explain the honour in which her name has been held, both at the time and ever since. "I see here," says Bp. Hall, "not only a disciple of God, but a prophetesse." Keil argues that Rahab regards God only as one of the gods, and supposes that she had not entirely escaped from polytheism. But this view does not appear to be borne out by the form of her expressions. We should rather, in that case, have expected to find "he is among the gods," than He is God, which is the only possible rendering of the Hebrew.
Now that is accurate exegesis. Instead of actually getting solid proof from Scriptures you run to K&D and quote them. Does Scripture say she remained polytheistic? Show us the passage without adding to it.
The truth of the matter is they have no proof for their conclusions at all. It isn't in the text. It was added. The arguments above are arguing the true biblical language used and show K&D to be out on a limb. There is nothing there to show she was polytheistic whatsoever.
There is more to expose the erroneous eisegesis of K&D:
“To view the land” was a hazardous undertaking. The physiognomy of the Hebrews would certainly betray them, and it did. The sacred writer does not commend Rahab’s mode of life nor her lies. Her morality was faulty enough, but beneath it, slowly smoldering, was a spark of pure love and faith, and this would consume the rubbish and burn clear, Heb_11:31.
The stalks of flax were probably laid out on the roof to dry. She believed, on the ground of the wonders wrought in Egypt, that Jehovah was the true God, and that His word was sure. Her faith proved itself in her works-in her efforts to save others, and in the confidence with which she rested behind her scarlet cord. That she was sneered at and persecuted is quite likely, but she persisted and became an ancestress of Christ, Mat_1:5. How faith greatens the soul! Jam_2:25. - H. Meyer commentary
Good, we are on the same page as far as inspiration and accuracy of the account is concerned.
Given that fact, consider again what "kingdoms" of the earth could Satan possibly offer Christ? They were the kingdom of the world:
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
--These are not God's kingdoms, or Christ's kingdom's.
The word "kingdom" is used 316 times in the Bible and usually refers to a worldly kingdom.
Here is the very first time the word "kingdom" is used:
Genesis 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
--It was a kingdom of rebellion and Satanic activity that God later destroyed. It indeed was Satan's kingdom.
The second time "kingdom" is used:
Genesis 20:9 Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done.
--Abraham passed through Abimilech's kingdom and it was Abraham that sinned. Abimilech was an ungodly man. His kingdom was not of God.
Numbers 32:33 And Moses gave unto them, even to the children of Gad, and to the children of Reuben, and unto half the tribe of Manasseh the son of Joseph, the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites, and the kingdom of Og king of Bashan, the land, with the cities thereof in the coasts, even the cities of the country round about.
--The Israelites conquered other pagan kingdoms.
Eventually, Israel rejected God and demanded Samuel that Samuel give to them a king. They also wanted to be a "kingdom" like all the other nations around them. God told Samuel give them what they want "They have not rejected you but me." And they chose Saul as king.
These are kingdoms of the world, and they were under Satan's domain.
If they were not under Satan's domain there was no temptation. How could Christ be tempted with something that was already his.
If you bow down and worship me (DHK) I will give you "your car." What kind of temptation is that?
But that is what you are saying. Christ didn't own the kingdoms. Satan did. That is why it was a temptation. It has to fit the context.
I didn't argue that point. I stated it as a fact and then demonstrated how it was a non-issue.
You would do the same thing when arguing with an agnostic or atheist (which you took offense to).
No, I never did. I said that is the argument of an agnostic. There is a big difference. You are using the same argument or style of argument that they would use. In no way am I calling you an agnostic, and I never referred to your salvation. Why the false accusation?
I never said you were agnostic.
God allows Satan and man's wickedness to reign in this world. That is what I said. It is not a matter of control. You bring "control", a non issue, into this. If God controlled every thing, every person, both saved and unsaved would be robots or puppets, doing exactly what God wants. God is the author of evil according to you. God told Saudi Arabia to execute those individuals. God told Iran to arrest those Christians. God commands women to have abortions, and even tells them what clinics to go to. We are all puppets in his hand with no choice to do anything. If you sin, it is not your fault. God did it for you. He is in complete control of your sins, and the sins of all the people of the world. God is in control of all things--wicked, evil, etc.[/.b] According to the Calvinist, no one is responsible for anything. God is in complete control. Every evil act God performs. Is that right? That is your view?
According to Scripture God has allowed:
Satan to be the god of this word; the prince of the power of the air; a ruler of this world that lies in complete darkness.
But at the same time you contradict this and say that He is in control. Either He allows the wickedness of Satan or He completely controls it and is the author of it. Which one?
It is not John that wrote James 4:4, the verse you just referred to but James.
And that verse is written to Christians, carnal worldly Christians who have made themselves friends of the world and enemies of God. Good verse! I'm glad you referred to it.
James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
--Spiritual adulterers and spiritual adulteresses because they have become friends of the world. How many Christians are like that? Plenty! Why? They are tempted by Satan, the god of this world and give into his temptation. Christ is the only One who never gave in to the temptations of Satan. He is perfect. But Christians fail many times. Satan is as a roaring lion walking about seeking Christians that he may devour them.
WOF did not write 2Cor.4:4. Paul did.
2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
--And just who do you think this "god of the world" is?
Where have you ever proven that? I have never seen that proof.
Always? Then why do you sin?
Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
You do sin don't you?
1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
What devices?
Does Christ rule on this earth right now? The scriptures say that He will. Have you accounted for that?
Please look to your ownself before posting such things. Judge not lest ye be judged. It would be good if you read that entire portion.
First, let it be noted that K&D are the foremost Hebrew scholars in this field. They should know what they are talking about. If anyone uses exegesis it is they. Check their commentaries as they take their arguments from the Hebrew words themselves.
Where in Scripture?
One has to account for "revelation," for growth, spiritual maturity, etc. She did not all of a sudden become a spiritual giant as you claimed in a previous post--a ridiculous claim. The only thing she had done up to this point is give glory to God on the basis of what she had heard of what God had done in Egypt and also God defeating two other small state-kings. She accounted that the God of Israel was "all powerful." That is all that her statement says. From that you have developed an entire kingdom theology which is entirely absurd.
--It shows her to be a believer and that is all. That is all that Gill says. He does not say anything about her having any knowledge about a coming kingdom, as you profess. His quote works against you. We know from what she testified that she became a believer and that is all.
Still he comments that she only became a believer and states that she "uttered some knowledge of God's name and attributes we do not know." Even here there is no admission of any kingdom or kingdom theology which you are reading into this passage. Your eisigesis is absurd.
Meyer is commenting from hindsight, that is after her entire life is over. We are only commenting on one verse, and that is Josh.2:11, the words that she uttered when she first met the spies. At that time she knew very little. As her life progressed she learned more (which Meyer comments on). Her first words simply testify that the God of Israel is the true God and that is all. And you build a kingdom theology out of that?? Amazing![/QUOTE]
Mr. Moderator,
You will not win your case because your argument is based on the literal interpretation of scripture and the opposing views are based on allegorical interpretation in conjunction with replacement theology of which will be argued that it is not. But Mr. Icon stated the below argument he immediately told me he is reformed in his education and thinking.
"The Jews in mass rejected Jesus.....they are in hell now.
Their rejection resulted in the Kingdom being taken from them and given to the Holy Nation......The Church, ...
Notice Jesus said. ..it. is taken from you, and GIVEN...taken and given.....that has happened already."
First not all the Jews that rejected Christ are in hell "Paul would be the great example here but also Acts states that many of the priests and Pharisees were later saved.
The kingdom spoken of in Matthew 21:43 was not given to the church but was instead given to the gentile nations. (Careful here, if you say the church existed in Mathew 21 which is a fundy belief then how do you contend the church started at Pentecost. The only way as Icon says the other nation could be the church is to believe the church co-existed as Israel in the Old Testament which is still replacement theology.
This is an unwinnable debate neither side will retract their basic belief of interpretation so it is a waste of time and each others 2 cents.
thjplgvp
You will not win your case because your argument is based on the literal interpretation of scripture and the opposing views are based on allegorical interpretation in conjunction with replacement theology of which will be argued that it is not. But Mr. Icon stated the below argument he immediately told me he is reformed in his education and thinking.
"The Jews in mass rejected Jesus.....they are in hell now.
Their rejection resulted in the Kingdom being taken from them and given to the Holy Nation......The Church, ...
Notice Jesus said. ..it. is taken from you, and GIVEN...taken and given.....that has happened already."
First not all the Jews that rejected Christ are in hell "Paul would be the great example here but also Acts states that many of the priests and Pharisees were later saved.
The kingdom spoken of in Matthew 21:43 was not given to the church but was instead given to the gentile nations. (Careful here, if you say the church existed in Mathew 21 which is a fundy belief then how do you contend the church started at Pentecost. The only way as Icon says the other nation could be the church is to believe the church co-existed as Israel in the Old Testament which is still replacement theology.
This is an unwinnable debate neither side will retract their basic belief of interpretation so it is a waste of time and each others 2 cents.
thjplgvp
Satan is a liar, they are not his kingdom's to give.
Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all.12 Both riches and honor come from you, and you rule over all.In your hand are power and might, and in your hand it is to make great and to give strength to all.
I Chron.29:11-12
The earth is the Lord's and the fullness there of,]the world and those who dwell therein,
Ps. 24:1
Just a couple from the OT to show that God has always had control of the earth, and He is the ruler of it, not Satan.
And yet they are still under God's dominion, no matter how hard you try to escape that fact.
And yet he is still under God's dominion.
Read the book of Daniel sometimes. That is a book that makes clear that all Kingdoms on this earth are really under God's Dominion and He will rise kingdoms and He will destroy Kingdoms as He sees fit.
Yes Context, the God-Man coming as the suffering Servant. I'm sure it was tempting to short circuit God's plan and come in as a conquering King to His Kingdom.
Again if its such a non-issue to you, you do seem to spend a lot of time trying to prove Satan's dominion.
I don't bring up non-issues in debates, since they are obviously non-issues. If the other person brings them up I ignore them and stay on point.
Here is what you said:
bold mine
I think it so Ironic that you are accusing me of "pushing God out of the picture" when it is you that wants to give Satan dominion over this world.
Sure you did but you'll never admit it so lets just move on.
When you continue to insist that Satan is ruling this world you bring in the issue of control. I’m just countering it with truth that God is the one in control, even of Satan.
No Calvinist says that God is responsible for sin. But if that straw man helps you to deny the true of God’s Soverignty who am I to stand in the way.
I have no problem saying that God is Sovereign over all, and that man is responsible for his sin. That is what the Bible teaches clear and simple. But this is heading into Cal and Armin Territory.
The bigger issue is the false teaching of Satan having dominion over the earth. This is absolutely false and abhorrent to me.
A few more verse for you on God's Dominion:
20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places,21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church,23 which is his body,the fullness of him who fills all in all.
Eph 1:20-23
whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ.To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
1 Pet. 4:11
Continue
Yes I did get John and James mixed up but John does make it clear that we are not to love the world in 1 John 2:15-17
15 Do not love the world or the things in the world.If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh andthe desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.
Unless you want the Bible to be contradictory you have to acknowledge that the word world can mean different things.
You just love that proof text don’t you, so that you can have Satan be god. Again you have to acknowledge that world means different things. The Greek would probably be better translated age but that would destroy the idea of Satan having dominion over the earth. Satan doesn’t have dominion over the earth. Satan did not gain dominion over the earth at the fall. He may have influence of the world system but that doesn’t mean he is the ruler of this world. That is God’s role, and God’s alone.
Jesus makes it clear that he is the one that has authority over all the earth. Matt 28:18
18 And Jesus came and said to them,“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
I will not give to Satan anything the rightfully belongs to God and God alone.
Hello tvpMr. Moderator,
You will not win your case because your argument is based on the literal interpretation of scripture and the opposing views are based on allegorical interpretation in conjunction with replacement theology of which will be argued that it is not. But Mr. Icon stated the below argument he immediately told me he is reformed in his education and thinking.
"The Jews in mass rejected Jesus.....they are in hell now.
Their rejection resulted in the Kingdom being taken from them and given to the Holy Nation......The Church, ...
Notice Jesus said. ..it. is taken from you, and GIVEN...taken and given.....that has happened already."
First not all the Jews that rejected Christ are in hell "Paul would be the great example here but also Acts states that many of the priests and Pharisees were later saved.
The kingdom spoken of in Matthew 21:43 was not given to the church but was instead given to the gentile nations. (Careful here, if you say the church existed in Mathew 21 which is a fundy belief then how do you contend the church started at Pentecost. The only way as Icon says the other nation could be the church is to believe the church co-existed as Israel in the Old Testament which is still replacement theology.
This is an unwinnable debate neither side will retract their basic belief of interpretation so it is a waste of time and each others 2 cents.
thjplgvp
I will get online in a few hours.
I think you have posted some errors here that we can consider. For starters.....Mt 21 does not speak of gentile nation's plural.....even though the gospel goes worldwide.
Jesus did say it was taken from Israel.....and given to a nation.
Peter speaking to the church says....ye are a Holy Nation..
What nation is that? Sweden?
Why do you do such mental gymnastics when scripture is quite clear.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
You bring the personal innuendos daily. You love to add the 'You don't know the Bible, You don't understand the Gospel, a verse, have you ever studied the verse' nonsense. Put an end to it with everyone.
'Let it be noted'? Your assessment that they are 'foremost' is purely subjective. Well known? Sure. Often cited? Sure. Foremost? No.
They're incorrect here and other scholars that I have provided have pointed out their error. There was nothing in the text that shows Rahab maintained her polytheism. Not even a hint, and this was proven to all who can read what was provided. You've yet to bring a case other than your admiration and stroking of K&D. Certainly there is some good stuff from them, but here on this text they've added to the Scripture eisegetically.
Until you can prove it (her maintaining polytheism) is in the text you're simply theorizing and you might as well concede, or, continue arguing to add something to the text that isn't present.
The bottom line is it's not in the text of Scripture and you can't support nor prove it, all you can do is go ad hominem on those scholars provided and of course on me as well. I am Sola Scriptura and will stick to that.
Now either show it is in the text or simply digress.
Last edited:
Nice verses, but they don't indicate that Christ is ruling and reigning on this earth.
No one would ever contradict that riches and all of our blessings come from God; that is not the point. The point is that Satan is the god of this world, as Scripture declares, and is now ruling over this earth. The earthly kingdoms are his, not God's.
Again:
Genesis 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
--This was not God's doing. This was Satan's doing. God destroyed this kingdom by confusing their languages. But it was 't God's kingdom. Why would he destroy his own kingdom.
Jesus himself said:
Mark 3:24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
--It was not a kingdom that belonged to God, but rather Satan, and its leader rebelled against God.
You are deceived, whether purposely or not, I don't know.
If you were a citizen of Saudi Arabia you would be living in a kingdom, and the king would be your sovereign lord. You would be living in his dominion. You would be subject to the laws of his land as every citizen now is, whether or not you liked them. You could exercise your right to believe the Bible and be a Christian, but you couldn't exercise your "right" to gather together with other believers and build a local church. It is against their laws. Speaking against their prophet Mohammed is against their law and carries a stiff penalty. Your "rights" so-called, would be stiffly curtailed. You may be able to disobey some of the laws without repercussion. But if you go too far you will face a penalty, one that you may regret with the payment of your life. That king is your lord whether or not you like it. He does as he wishes as was demonstrated in the news recently. Whether you obey or disobey him won't affect him as being your lord.
Someday Christ will come and set up his own Kingdom and put down all other kingdoms. And then he will rightly be called the King of kings. He is not ruling in that position now. All the kingdoms of the world have not been put down. They are ruling just the way Satan would like them to, but within the great expanse of the allowance of the sovereignty of God. He allows this domain to be ruled by Satan for a season. Thus Satan could rightly offer the kingdoms of the world to Christ. And he continues to offer pleasures of the world to you and others.
God knows all things and is all powerful. It is sin that rules in the hearts of mankind.
The god of this world has blinded their hearts to the truth of the gospel, hasn't he? I can't believe I have to teach this truth to a Calvinist. Now I am on the other side of the coin. Suddenly I am teaching depravity and you are not only teaching free will but antinomianism, total chaos.
You are still not getting it. The God-Man suffered at all points such as we. He was tempted at all points such as we. This was a real temptation, not a game as you portray it. The temptation was real. Jesus did not own the kingdoms. They did not belong to his heavenly Father. They belonged to Satan and they were his to give. Otherwise there was no temptation. Do you really think Jesus would have been deceived by one of Satan's lie. Don't you think Christ had enough wisdom to detect a lie? He was tempted because the kingdoms were Satan's to give. It was a temptation of power and glory--not of overcoming a lie!!
It is a non-issue; but some people major on the minors and minor on the majors and thus have to be convinced otherwise.
It is not an issue to God. Put it that way.
Here is the statement:
You have simply pushed God out of the picture and become totally agnostic in your thinking.
--Conveniently you left off the prepositional modifier which changes the meaning entirely. Agnostic in your thinking is what is said. I didn't call you an agnostic. I referred to your thinking as agnostic, which is entirely different.
The agnostic uses the same kind of argument you were presenting.
If there is a God, why would he allow Satan to rule the earth?
If there is a God, why would he allow Iran to arrest Christians?
If there is a God, why would he send tornadoes and floods that kill hundreds?
--This is the thinking of an agnostic, and you are using the same tactic.
God is God, and he has every right to give this world into the hands of Satan and allow him to rule and reign over it, even if it affects your sensibilities and you protest against it. So what! He is sovereign and can do as he pleases whether He has your permission or not, and whether it agrees with Calvin or not.
It is not me but Scripture that declares Satan as the god of this world.
2Cor.4:4; Eph.2:2,3; Eph.6:11,12; 1Jn.5:19; Mat.4:8, etc.
Scripture declares Satan as the god of this world, not me.
You are adamant saying God is in control even of Satan. If he is truly in control then He is responsible for all sin, and is the author thereof. Who makes you sin? God, Satan, or you? Take your choice. But remember, God is in control--of everything. That is your theology. Therefore he is in control of your thoughts, your actions, your sin. He was in control of the Saudi Government when the executed 47 people yesterday, right? So, God becomes the author of sin. He is control. God no longer ALLOWS sin; He CONTROLS sin. God is in control you say. There is a big difference between allowing something to take place and controlling everything. You say he is in control. You make him the author of evil and sustainer thereof.
Even though Scripture so plainly teaches this in 2Cor.4:4 and many other places.
He is an "angel of light"
2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Note, you keep referring to "God's Dominion." Satan referred to the "kingdoms" (plural) of this world. God has only claimed one kingdom. Satan claimed to have many. Why?