Do you believe Revelation 12:4 teaches that 1/3 of the angels followed Lucifer in his rebellion?

Ed Vasicek

I am of the opinion (but not conviction) that there was a star created to correspond to every angel, since both angels and stars are referred to as the “host of heaven.” I also take Isaiah 14:12-15 as referring to the King of Babylon prophetically, but also as a flashback/forward to Lucifer’s fall.

In Luke 10:18 (ESV), Jesus refers to the original fall of Satan, which seems to be directly connected to Isaiah 14:

1And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

Discussion

Covenants: Clarity, Ambiguity, and Faith (Part 2)

Paul Henebury

Read part 1.

The subject of this article is how covenants clarify and underline specific terms about certain important (indeed, central) theological topics. If we all spoke the truth and we all could hear it unimpeded by sin’s effects, there would be no need of covenants. Covenants presuppose subjects (at least one) who have a propensity to diverge from an important truth. (It is for this reason that any pre-fall covenants, which are exegetically weak and empty in the first place, seem superfluous).

Covenants also assume the parties to the covenant (at the bare minimum) understand and acknowledge the terms of the covenant.

Discussion

Best Guess: Which category of Scripture is your weakest area (of fluency)?

Ed Vasicek

What part of Scripture is your weakest spot? This may involve a guesstimate. For example, if you are weak in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy but strong in Genesis and Exodus, are you weak in the Torah? That is for you to decide as you compare sections. Your comments are appreciated, as well as testimonies about how you “shored up” weak areas.

Poll Results

Best Guess: Which category of Scripture is your weakest area (of fluency)?

Discussion

God and the "Gay Christian"? A Biblical Response - Chapter 3

Aaron Blumer

Vines’ third chapter aims to show that those holding to traditional Christian sexual ethics have a major dilemma on their hands. Allegedly, the traditional view of celibacy is not compatible with the traditional view of homosexuality. One or the other must go.

The claim is part of Vines’ overall strategy in the book—to frame the homosexuality debate as a matter of human suffering and doctrinal progress vs. uncaring and rigid traditionalism. To Vines, the view that homosexual conduct is wrong even within “committed, monogamous same-sex relationships” (41) causes great suffering for homosexuals and depends on a faulty understanding of Scripture. (Kindle location numbers appear here rather than page numbers.)

The basic argument

Specifically, chapter 3 argues that the non-affirming view (Vines’ term for the view that all homosexual conduct is sin) forces celibacy on homosexuals and that this forcing is contrary to the traditional view that celibacy is voluntary and a gift from God.

He writes:

Discussion