Posted on 01/03/2016 5:07:32 AM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans
OT equivalent of bourn = wadi
Now all you have to do is give me the NT word for ‘minion’ or ‘flunky,’ used in the context of “Satan’s.”
.
Accusing to sinful men is meaningless in the spiritual realm.
I understand what you are saying, but just question the effect of those accusations. Accusations from such sources are like medals of honor.
Please don’t think my interest in this is personal. The poster in question is not my concern. But it does look to me as though you’ve set up a straw man, a linguistic condition that is impossible to meet, even if the underlying circumstance in question is true.
So first of all, as I understand it, you want to know if the exact phrase “ minions of Satan” is in the Bible. No English Bible I know of meets that condition. That’s your straw man, and of course it is easily knocked down. At this point, you should be satisfied that the irrelevant test you provided fails just as it should.
However, if you find that meaningless little game less than satisfying (I know I do), then we need to address the real issue, which, as I understand it, is whether a professing believer can ever be construed as a servant of Satan. If you object that “servant” and “minion” have a substantially different meaning, feel free to explain to me what that is, because I’m not sure what that might be.
So, using legitimate English synonyms for minion, we actually do find Scripture that speaks this way about professing believers. For example, consider the false apostles of 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, who are described as being Satan’s “diakonos,” servants or ministers, both legitimate English equivalents.
So no matter how one tries to evade it, the Scriptures are clear. Yes, absolutely, it is possible for those who profess faith in Christ to be, in fact, servants of Satan, or minions, if that is your preferred term for servant. It is a sobering thought, and good motivation to cling all the tighter to Jesus as we see the evil times approaching.
Peace,
SR
So in your virw, asking if a person is behaving in a Scriptural, godly manner is a strawman? Surely you can’t be serious???
Here’s the situation. A person points a finger at a professing believer and says, “Minion of Satan!”
I say, is that Scriptural? Is it true to the commands and admonitions by which Christians are to live?
And that is your definition of a strawman???
Heaven help us.
And now we’re calling the OP a servant of Satan? On what grounds? That he painstakingly vetted Cruz, and in that connection, Cruz’ father, in relationship to Dominionism? That makes him a servant of Satan?
Please don’t deflect off the issue. It isn’t honest. The person that made the charge didn’t affirm, in the impersonal and general sense, that servants of Satan “exist.” He called the OP a “minion of Satan.” No, I don’t concede that servant and minion are exact synonyms. But for the sake of the discussion, I’ll let that go.
What I won’t let go is the accusation of the OP. He was called a “minion of Satan.” If that’s unbiblical, and ‘servant’ is the only word you can work with, it will have to do.
Now explain simply, honestly and exactly, what the OP did to warrant being publicly judged and called out as a servant of Satan.
You see, I was afraid of this. You have me confused with someone else. I never made any such accusation against the OP. It is not my pattern and you can check my posting history if so inclined to confirm it.
Furthermore, you are confused (or perhaps it is I) about what I am calling the straw man. I specifically said I was not addressing the OP, but merely the logical, linguistic possibility that someone who is a professing Christian might in fact be a servant of Satan. I found your approach evasive to that fact. You seemed to me to be saying you required exact language in order to justify a concept, when in fact the concept is present in Scripture, despite the lack of the exact language you are demanding. That seemed wrong to me, and it was my sole motive in responding.
To make it clear then, so there is no future confusion, no, it is not a straw man to question whether someone’s actions conform to Scripture, and I have never said so, and if you go back and reread my posts carefully, I hope you will see you are reacting to an event that didn’t occur. My sole interest was defending as Biblical that someone who professes to be a believer, even someone who thinks they are doing God a favor, could well be an agent of the evil one. That concept stands, and as nothing you have said addresses it, I must assume you have no rebuttal.
Peace,
SR
It’s not ‘no rebuttal,’ it’s that I stay on topic. If you will go back and read my posts, you will see that from the beginning I have been focussed on the rightness or wrongness of the OP being called a minion of Satan. When it comes to believers going astray, I posted all I have to say on that subject when I quoted the Apostle Paul. Here it is again:
‘Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.’
I got into this discussion bc it bothered me to see a professing Christian called a minion of Satan. You jumped in. If you jumped in to change the subject, you should have said so. It goes like this:
Off topic, but I’d like to discuss unwitting agents of the evil one.
I’d have politely turned you down. I don’t have unlimited time, and I was using what little I had to discuss the topic at hand. Sorry if you had nothing to contribute to that. Maybe think twice in the future about inserting yourself merely to switch topics—which amounts to muddying the water. Bear in mind that others will not always go off on a different tangent just bc you want them to.
Blessings to you and yours throughout the New Year.
Ps: I could certainly discuss your issue if I had expendable time and the inclination. I have neither.
Can you cite a Scripture identifying Satan’s minions as flesh and blood? The Apostle Paul put it this way:
Ephesians 6:12
‘For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3379182/posts?page=1006#1006... you throw down the gauntlet of questioning sitetest's theological premise, whether a "minion of Satan" could ever be a human, and you buttress your position with a (misapplied) Scripture.
Does the Bible ever refer to human beings as minions of Satan?In the above post, you appear to be attempting to show an internal inconsistency in sitetest's theological premise, a good debate technique, if flawed in this particular instance. Internal inconsistency is a great way to detect errors in logic.
How can a minion of Satan not be under judgment? The eternal fire is prepared for the devil and his angels...but not for his minions?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3379182/posts?page=1008#1008
Thank you. I’d have gone down much the same path, but I do a lot of posting on a smart phone, and I was just too lazy.
You may not recognize that even the posts you highlighted relate to the original topic: calling the OP a minion of Satan. That’s your view, but not mine. From my POV it is all extremely focussed. Namely, in what way is this human being, who simply did extensive research into Cruz and Dominionism, a minion of Satan. If the definition of minion of Satan is someone who researches your preferred candidate, then he qualifies. But in order to meet that definition, it was necessary to gain more insight into the nature of satanic minions. Apparently you have decided that the non-Biblical concept of minions of Satan means whatever is most helpful to your tangent.
Fine by me. I already told you, politely, that I don’t have the time, even if I were so inclined, to indulge your tangent. If you want to falsely misrepresent—i.e.: lie—about that, and claim I have plenty of time but I’m just avoiding you, that would be untrue, wrong and a big mistake. But it’s still your choice. Make a wise one.
Btw, now I can see why you are so resentful of me for staying focussed on the original language. ‘Minions of Satan,’ really IS an unBiblical concept, and that runs counter to your ‘agents of the evil one’ fixation. It really shouldn’t be hard for you to find someone with sufficient time on their hands to indulge you in this discussion, which you are obviously itching to have. Try the religion forum. I’m sure you’ll get plenty of takers.
Blessings.
Peace,
SR
‘Your flurry of dodges just now does not address the argument at all. It is pure obfuscation. That’s fine with me. I accept your concession.’
You are either extremely dishonest or extremely mistaken. Very disappointing to see, in either case.
Blessings.
:)
Peace, and God’s blessing on you.
SR
Your post 1,090 contained many falsehoods. I don’t know if they were purposeful, for reasons known only to you and God, or whether there is a more benign explanation. I know that any attempt to discuss it would end up taking hours—hours I don’t have.
In light of that, I will pose a few lingering questions I have. They all relate to the only topic I’ve been engaged with from the beginning.
First, do you believe it is a sin to slander a believer in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior with the charge of being a minion of Satan?
Second, on what grounds would you justify one Christian publicly labeling another Christian a minion of Satan?
Lastly, does the OP qualify as a minion of Satan under your rules?
Again, you are asking me to defend a position I never took. I don’t know why you think that helps your case. In posts 1006 and 1008, you chose, of your own free will, to enlarge the question to whether humans could be minions of Satan. I responded to that by demonstrating, from scripture, yes that is possible. I never addressed, nor did I intend to address, how that truth might apply to the OP.
As for slander, truth is an absolute defense under human law. The problem is, one cannot see behind the curtain and know who is pushing someone’s buttons. However, we are entitled by Christ to test the spirits, to know a false teacher by their fruits, and so forth. If someone is repeatedly slandering good people, it does send up a red flag with me. Would I make it something to camp on? Only if I thought the spiritual well being of others was at stake. In this particular case, since the forum rules discourage making personal attacks, going personal is just not something I’m interested in doing, though I am not shy about rebuking theological error when I see it, and as you have promoted error, you should not be surprised when you are called on it.
Hope that helps.
BTW, I believe it is customary when you charge someone with falsehood, to be specific about the falsehood you think you see. Just putting it out there to damage someone without providing them any opportunity for self-defense is defamatory, and I find it hard to accept that one as concerned as you appear to be about slander would engage in slander yourself. But I hope to be wrong about this, and hope your failure to make specific charges is simply an oversight.
Peace,
SR
You answered none of my questions, and took a great many words to do so. If you will answer my questions, I will speak to the issue you raised. Short of that, virtually everything you said in the post I cited is false. But I’m unable, even if I wanted to, to spend all day arguing about it.
If you have no specific complaint against me, then we’re good. Reasonable folks can figure out what’s happening here, and I’m OK with that.
God bless you.
SR
It doesn’t matter a whit was reasonable folks think. What matters is what God thinks. Before God I have honestly said, more times than I can count, that my sole focus from the beginning has been the Scriptural propriety of a person calling a confessed believer in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior a “minion of Satan.” The locus of your dishonesty lies in claiming to know more about what was in my mind when I made a given statement than I do. Sorry, only God operates on that level. Your choice is to accept my explanation or call me a liar. [Confused doesn’t cut it. There was and is not one scintilla of confusion in my mind about what I was discussing—as I have already told you.]
There is a particular pathology at work in people who refuse to allow others to speak for themselves. I.e.: me saying, truthfully, that I was discussing minions of Satan, and you insisting I was discussing something else. It is a manipulative, control-freak mania. You can’t afford to let me speak for myself. Then you wouldn’t be in control of not only the discussion, but even of my thoughts, motives and intentions. So you dismiss my side of the discussion with dishonest accusations of evasion, obfuscation and concession, all the while continuing to substitute what you WANTED me to say/think/intend for what I actually said/thought/intended.
This is the mirror opposite of the Golden Rule. It is death to healthy Christian interaction. It is nothing to be proud of.
Btw, see below my very first comment to you on the thread. This came AFTER you falsely accused me of having gone off message/shifted subjects. My post gives the lie to that blatantly false accusation. (I looked at my second post to you also. If anything, it’s even more on topic than the first. Your false accusation that I didn’t stay focussed on the sole issue I raised and pursued has been a lie from the beginning.)
“A person was called a “minion of Satan.” I’m trying to learn more about this concept, but not from a dictionary. From the Bible.”
I am sorry w are having such a hard time connecting. I assure you, before God and everyone here, I had no intention of attempting to mischaracterize anything you were saying. You are right to say that in the end, only God’s opinion matters, and I am confident God knows better than you do what my intentions were and still are, solely and exclusively to address a theological question you raised.
And yes, I do think you are using all this to avoid the dealing with the fact that your position is not scripturally sound. It is perfectly legitimate to identify anyone, no matter what their profession, as agents of Satan, if the facts support the charge. It is not slander if it is true.
The problem is, in any given case, especially in a forum like this, people confuse opinion for truth. There is good reason to be cautious. Jesus can call the Pharisees the sons of their father the Devil, because he knew it was true. It proves the broader principle that such charges can be legitimate, and that was the question raised by your posts 1006 and 1008. I addressed that question, and you went off into the twilight zone, first chiding me for changing the topic, then chiding me for trying to be manipulative, neither of which is true. It would be probably a waste of perfectly good pixels to say more, so I leave it to the discerning reader, and above all to God, to sort out the truth. I stand by everything I said, though I wish with all my heart we could present a testimony of Christian reconciliation, instead of the nonsense into which this conversation has degenerated.
Peace,
SR
Here is my second post to you. Please note how diligently I’m staying on topic:
“As far as I know, the person who was designated a minion of Satan confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. What are the Biblical guidelines for calling a professing believer a minion of Satan?
It may surprise you to know that the English words used in the NT have Greek counterparts. If you have a Biblical text alluding to minions of Satan, I would be just as happy to receive it in Greek as in English. The critical issue is what ***the Bible***, in either the original text or a translation, says about minions of Satan. It is an immanently legitimate question under the circumstances. Still waiting for an honest, straightforward answer.”
Again, you have outright lied about me, in suggesting I departed from the topic. The above post, made AFTER my falsely alleged change of subject, proves how untrue your accusations have been.
Since you cannot or will not accept evidence from the thread, here is an analogy. A critically sick person walks into a medical facility. One Dr says, let’s treat this patient right here, right now.
A second Dr sas, no, let’s discuss a general class of cases that bear a similarity to this one.
The first Dr says, I don’t have the time or desire for that discussion right now. I’m focussing on the patient who is right here, critically ill.
The second Dr bursts into a fusillade of accusations: Evasion! Obfuscation! Concession!
Some time later, after the first Dr has done his best to treat the patient, while the second Dr did his best to prevent and obstruct treatment, the second Dr says, Look, even though you did evade, obfuscate and concede, and even though it was YOU, not I, who wanted to discuss general cases, we’re both Drs. So for the sake of our shared profession, let’s sing Kumbya.
It’s a pathology. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. It is pathological.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.