Hi Reggie,Hi Pastor Gregg,
I came to know about your ministry through youtube, and I got really excited when I came upon your series on spiritual warfare, I even downloaded the many different sessions, but when I came to the origin of Lucifer you disagree that he was the person described in Ezekiel 28:12-28 and Isaiah14:12-14 so you really lost me there and I stopped listening to your series. I disagree with you strongly there and actually most Bible teachers do—to mention a few: Chuck Swindoll, John Macarthur, Tony Evans, Perry Stone, ETC. Who do you think Lucifer is?
Reggie
Thanks for writing. I'm sorry that finding an area of disagreement with me has caused you to stop listening, but it was bound to happen eventually. My teaching isn't for everybody. I am interested in the truth, which requires my teaching what the Bible actually says, rather than what popular Christianity has become accustomed to claiming that it says. It does not interest me to know what most Bible teachers say about a subject, if they cannot back it up with Biblical evidence. You know, of course, that Martin Luther got kicked out of the Catholic Church for this very reason. "Most teachers" of his time were teaching things that he could not find taught in the Bible, and he had the audacity to go with the Bible, instead of the teachers.
It is not news to me to hear that someone has a different view of Satan's origins than I have. I myself once held the popular view, and I am well aware that most people do. Therefore, when I teach what I find in scripture, I realize that what I am saying (and what the scriptures actually say) differs from what most listeners have heard. I fully expect that.
However, another thing I fully expect is that the listeners will consider the points I am making with sufficient objectivity to allow them to see whether what I am saying is the same thing that the Bible says, or not. Some people don't want to see what the Bible says, if it is not going to support what popular teachers say. I have encountered this mentality all my life, so I am not really surprised by your statements.
If you want to know who I think Lucifer is, I would simply ask, "Who does the Bible say that Lucifer is?" There is only one place in the Bible that mentions "Lucifer," so it should be easy enough to consider all the biblical evidence. Comparing Isaiah 14:12 and v.16, we find that the only individual ever referred to as "Lucifer" is a "man" (not an angel) and, according to v. 4, he is the king of Babylon. Mystery solved!
It is clear that the individual in Ezekiel 28 is not Lucifer, since Lucifer was "the king of Babylon," and the person in Ezekiel was "the king of Tyre" (28:12). There was not one individual who was both king of Babylon and of Tyre.
Of course, the popular view is that these are both referring to Satan, as the "power behind the throne" in both Babylon and Tyre. However, there is nothing in either passage (nor elsewhere in scripture) to suggest this theory, which makes it, obviously, an "unscriptural" assumption.
I guess you already listened, in the lecture, to my arguments, and found them unpersuasive. As you know, if you did in fact listen, I don't care what anyone thinks about the origin of Satan, so it is fine with me that you hold another opinion. But unless you can bring better scriptural arguments for your position than I have presented for mine, you should acknowledge that you are more willing to follow tradition than scripture in this matter.
Blessings!
Steve Gregg