Is Satan's 1st Sin even Possible?

[psimmond]

I know this is an old thread, but this is the first I've seen it and I think Matt's idea is interesting and offers a reasonable explanation.

The traditional view assumes Satan was created morally good but with the ability to desire that which he shouldn't desire and that this wrong desire was internally motivated. This sounds strange, but since I'm not an angel, I'm hesitant to say it would be logically impossible for God to create such a being.

However, after considering some of Steve's arguments, I'm leaning toward the idea that God created Satan as his adversary and enemy. He created Satan because the role that Satan plays as a tester suits God's purpose, but God has no love for Satan and when it is time, it will please him to throw Satan into the lake of fire. As a part of God's creation, Satan is "good" in that he fulfills his role as an adversarial tempter in God's good plan. Maybe Satan is a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction. (It looks like I may have to change my view that God loves all of his creation.)

I tell my kids that mosquitoes are good because they provide food for bats, but I hate mosquitoes and it pleases me to fry them with a bug zapper when I find them in my house!

[Paidion]

If our will is vulnerable to influence is it free? Is that the definition of free?

I know of no one who believes that the possession of free will requires invulnerability to influence.
I define free will as "the ability to choose among alternative possibilities of action."

[God] created Satan because the role that Satan plays as a tester suits God's purpose, but God has no love for Satan and when it is time, it will please him to throw Satan into the lake of fire.

I can't make sense out of this.
God creates Satan for a purpose. Satan carries out God's purpose. So God casts him into the Lake of Fire for doing so.

[psimmond]

Psimmond wrote: [God] created Satan because the role that Satan plays as a tester suits God's purpose, but God has no love for Satan and when it is time, it will please him to throw Satan into the lake of fire.

Paidion wrote: I can't make sense out of this.
God creates Satan for a purpose. Satan carries out God's purpose. So God casts him into the Lake of Fire for doing so.

When Steve made a similar argument on a different thread, I responded the same way, Why would God send someone to hell for just doing what they were created to do. (That sounds like Calvinism.) But if Satan were a liar and murderer from the beginning and created to be such, it would be like creating a frankenstein in a laboratory with the foreknowledge that this creature must be done away with after it has served it's purpose because it is just too dangerous.

If Satan were created to be both an adversary and an enemy, then God would not be casting him into the lake of fire for being a good and faithful servant. Instead God would be sending him to hell because there is no place for this evil adversarial tempter in the new earth.

Perhaps...
1. God will destroy Satan when he is through with him, i.e. burned up in the lake of fire.

or

2. Satan (and perhaps the demons) in hell will torment rebellious humans. I say "perhaps the demons" because I think it's possible that Satan will torment both the demons and the humans in hell. (Satan would basically keep doing what he's been doing only without restrictions.)

[Paidion]

If Satan were created to be both an adversary and an enemy, then God would not be casting him into the lake of fire for being a good and faithful servant. Instead God would be sending him to hell because there is no place for this evil adversarial tempter in the new earth.

I can't really see that this solves the problem. It seems just to shift it a bit.

If "Satan were created to be both an adversary and an enemy", then this makes God the author of evil. Why should Satan be cast into hell? He would not be responsible for being an adversary and a tempter to evil. This would be precisely what He was created to be. Thus the responsibility would rest squarely on God's shoulders.

However, if God had created Satan as a good and beautiful archangel, the morning star, and if he rebelled of his own free will, then the responsibility for his evil would rest completely on his own shoulders and not in any degree on God's.

[psimmond]

Paidion said...

If "Satan were created to be both an adversary and an enemy", then this makes God the author of evil. Why should Satan be cast into hell? He would not be responsible for being an adversary and a tempter to evil. This would be precisely what He was created to be. Thus the responsibility would rest squarely on God's shoulders.

However, if God had created Satan as a good and beautiful archangel, the morning star, and if he rebelled of his own free will, then the responsibility for his evil would rest completely on his own shoulders and not in any degree on God's.

If this is the case, then we would have to say that God did create a being to tempt people to do evil. But I'm not sure this is unreasonable. It seems you're talking about Satan being tossed in hell as punishment for doing what he was created to do. What if, unlike angels and humans, Satan never fell morally? In this case there is nothing redeemable or restorable in him. Like I said before, he could be going to hell because he is no longer needed--we use milk cows until they no longer give good milk and then we butcher them. Or, he could be going to hell to continue doing what he's good at. Either way, he will never be loose to interfere with God's future plans.

[steve7150]

Steve7150 wrote:If our will is vulnerable to influence is it free? Is that the definition of free?



I know of no one who believes that the possession of free will requires invulnerability to influence.
I define free will as "the ability to choose among alternative possibilities of action."





In Gal 5.1 Paul says "Christ has made us free and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." Although Paul was speaking to Jews, Jesus also said that he came to free the oppressed and to free the captives.
So my point is that this ability to choose is impacted by bondage,oppression,captivity,blindness by the devil and our fallen nature with our addiction to sin. So IMO the ability to choose does not equate with free will. If it did 98% of people would be followers of Jesus not the approx 2% we have.
After the resurrection , after Satan is thrown into the Lake of Fire, folks will really have free will for the first time IMHO.

[Paidion]

If this is the case [God creating Satan as an archangel], then we would have to say that God did create a being to tempt people to do evil. But I'm not sure this is unreasonable.

I don't see how this follows. In fact it seems to me that it DOESN'T follow. For if God created Satan as a good archangel, Lucifer, the Angel of Light, then he was created to do the good will of God in a powerful way. And if Satan was created as a free will moral agent, then his choice to rebel arose strictly out of himself, and thus he is responsible and totally blameworthy for his continuing evil actions. God is not at all responsible since the person he became was not the person God created.

Like I said before, he could be going to hell because he is no longer needed--we use milk cows until they no longer give good milk and then we butcher them...

It seems odd to employ the use of milk cows as an analogy for "using" an intelligent, morally good,free will agent until he is no longer useful, and then disposing of him. God just doesn't use people (nor angels) this way).

[psimmond]

Psimmond wrote:If this is the case [God creating Satan as an archangel], then we would have to say that God did create a being to tempt people to do evil. But I'm not sure this is unreasonable.

I don't see how this follows. In fact it seems to me that it DOESN'T follow. For if God created Satan as a good archangel, Lucifer, the Angel of Light, then he was created to do the good will of God in a powerful way. And if Satan was created as a free will moral agent, then his choice to rebel arose strictly out of himself, and thus he is responsible and totally blameworthy for his continuing evil actions. God is not at all responsible since the person he became was not the person God created.

Like I said before, he could be going to hell because he is no longer needed--we use milk cows until they no longer give good milk and then we butcher them...

It seems odd to employ the use of milk cows as an analogy for "using" an intelligent, morally good,free will agent until he is no longer useful, and then disposing of him. God just doesn't use people (nor angels) this way).

Hi Paidion,
the words you inserted in my quotation show that I didn't express myself clearly, sorry. When I said "If this is the case...," I was referring to the case I was making that Satan might have been created to be both an adversary and an enemy, not a "morally good,free will agent" who fell as a result of sin.

[jarrod]

I'm jumping in here having only read a few posts so excuse me if I'm saying something someone else repeated.

I think I am fine with satan being created evil (one Cf. Isa 45:7). I don't know why we typically shy away from verses like that and try to explain them away because He doesn't fit in our cup? So what if God created satan evil... does that in anyway make Him less Holy? Who are we to say otherwise to the Potter?

What if satan was evil and a "murderer from the beginning?" He was given a rather large kingdom and I'm sure He enjoyed it for the time He possessed it. If he loves taking people down with him, murdering, lying, and sinning, then it seems like he has had his way since the history of creation.

How is it fair that satan was created evil and sentenced to judgment? I think we are so off-base with our concept of the meaning of "fair." If God chose to do that, I say it again, I don't think that makes Him any less just and He can do what He wants for His purposes. I will re-read some of these posts now searching for balanced comment regarding this paragraph.

I guess I say all that and I'm still not sure I believe it, but, I would be ok with it if that is the way God designed him (or anything else for that matter).

Anyway, just thinking outloud,

Jrod

[DanielGracely]

I'm jumping in here having only read a few posts so excuse me if I'm saying something someone else repeated.

I think I am fine with satan being created evil (one Cf. Isa 45:7). I don't know why we typically shy away from verses like that and try to explain them away because He doesn't fit in our cup? So what if God created satan evil... does that in anyway make Him less Holy? Who are we to say otherwise to the Potter?

What if satan was evil and a "murderer from the beginning?" He was given a rather large kingdom and I'm sure He enjoyed it for the time He possessed it. If he loves taking people down with him, murdering, lying, and sinning, then it seems like he has had his way since the history of creation.

How is it fair that satan was created evil and sentenced to judgment? I think we are so off-base with our concept of the meaning of "fair." If God chose to do that, I say it again, I don't think that makes Him any less just and He can do what He wants for His purposes. I will re-read some of these posts now searching for balanced comment regarding this paragraph.

I guess I say all that and I'm still not sure I believe it, but, I would be ok with it if that is the way God designed him (or anything else for that matter).

Anyway, just thinking outloud,

Jrod

Jarrod,
Paul’s citation of the potter in Romans 9 has nothing to do with creating someone to be either good or bad. It is about the irresistibility of God in judgment. It is cited at least three times in the O.T. prophets and, like Paul’s use of it, all three contexts involve the judgment of nation states. And the point about Jacob and Esau (to anticipate your objection?) is that nations pattern themselves after one or the other— the man of faith or the man who fails to repent.

In my opinion the relentless confession and belief that God would create someone evil is at least akin to some sort of blasphemy, since it fails to distinguish altogether the work of the Spirit from the work of the Devil, their kingdoms, and their opposite motivations.