Is Satan's 1st Sin even Possible?

[mattrose]

Paidion,

While you raise legitimate points against some versions of the non-traditional view, the theory that I put forward in my last post addressed both of your concerns.

Your 2 most recent concerns
1) How could a good creation include a being created as evil?
2) Why would God annihilate a being that simply did its job?

Perhaps you missed my short paragraph in my last post

I theorize that the satan was created as a tester. And he performed that role well. But the more humanity failed the test, the more pride in his role began to form. He started to want them to fail. And desired to control them. God allows him to remain (as a corrupted tester) because testing is still filling a role. What was originally meant as a test to be passed (from God's perspective) ended up being a temptation to fail (from Satan's perspective). But as the satan tempts, God is still testing, and so the role is still worthwhile.

This addresses both of your concerns
1) God's creation included a tester (which is not a moral evil)
2) The tester became corrupted along the way, which explains whatever form of punishment he receives

I know this theory raises other questions. That's why I'm happy to receive feedback

in Christ,
matthew

[TK]

Hi Matt-

How would creating a being who "tested" people to see if he can get them to do evil NOT be creating a moral evil?

And why would God need to create a separate being to be the tester? Why could not God simply do the testing?

Very interesting topic, BTW.

TK

[mattrose]

How would creating a being who "tested" people to see if he can get them to do evil NOT be creating a moral evil?

That's not really my theory. My theory is that God created a being who tested people. Period. Testing is morally neutral. God wanted them to pass the test. The tester just gave the test. In my theory it was only later, once corrupted, that he took pride in his testing and began to want people to fail.

And why would God need to create a separate being to be the tester? Why could not God simply do the testing?

He could. But this is the same as asking why God created other angels with different roles. I'm not sure why God created Michael to protect His people when He could certainly do the job Himself. But He did.


Thanks for your feedback!
matthew

[mattrose]

Of course, the main problem I have with my OWN theory is that Satan was a liar and murderer from the beginning. My theory says that he was a morally neutral tester from the beginning, but that those tests could include lies and misinformation that could result in death. I think the verse can fit. But the verse seems to know nothing of the tester being corrupted along the way, though it doesn't negate the possibility.

Some would surely object that a test containing lies can be morally neutral or, in any degree, a 'good' thing. But I think the Scriptures teach otherwise. Let me quote a passage in Deut. 13...

1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death

We see a number of interesting things in this passage. We see a prophet who is able to do (at least seemingly) miraculous things. We see a prophet attempts to steer people toward idolatry. And who is said to be, ultimately, behind this false prophet? It says The LORD their God was 'testing' them. So is it a moral evil for God to test His people via a false prophet? Apparently not. What's more, even though God was using the false prophet as a tester, the penalty for the prophet is still death, with speaks to an earlier objection by Paidion.

Let's look at another passage from 1 Kings 22

20 And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'
"One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'

22 " 'By what means?' the LORD asked.
" 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
" 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'

23 "So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."

Once again, we should note a number of interesting aspects to this story. The goal of God, here, seems to be to kill Ahab (which is certainly God's right). The means to killing Ahab ends up being the sending of a lying spirit into the mouths of prophets. So here we have God ordaining, even commanding, lies to spoken and a man to be killed. Is it too far a stretch, then, to consider the possibility that Satan could be a lying spirit and a killing spirit and, yet, still be under the ordination of God? The scripture opens the door to that possibility.

[TK]

interesting--

matt wrote:

My theory is that God created a being who tested people. Period. Testing is morally neutral. God wanted them to pass the test. The tester just gave the test. In my theory it was only later, once corrupted, that he took pride in his testing and began to want people to fail.

but, of course, it only took satan about .2 seconds to turn nasty, since he seemed to want the first person he tested to fail.

TK

[mattrose]

but, of course, it only took satan about .2 seconds to turn nasty, since he seemed to want the first person he tested to fail.

TK

Genesis 3 says the serpent was crafty. Genesis 3 has the serpent ask the woman if God really did say such and such a thing. Genesis 3 has the serpent lie to Eve. That's it. All of these things fit very much with Deut. 13:3 and 1 Kings 22:2 as something that God would endorse to test His people.

But overall, I'd back off the wording that Satan was simply a 'tester' at first and then only later 'wanted' them to fail the test. I really have no problem if, from the get-go, his role was to attempt to make people fail. Such a role would be a much more accurate test. But my theory would be that, as time went on, the satan may have been corrupted from his original purpose in some way. He seems pretty upset around the time of the ministry of Christ.

[Paidion]

Perhaps you missed my short paragraph in my last post

No, I didn't miss that paragraph. Although it seems to answer my two objections, your original problem seems to remain unless you allow for free will and desire as an explanaton. Otherwise, how was it possible for this "tester" to become corrupt?

[mattrose]

Perhaps you missed my short paragraph in my last post

No, I didn't miss that paragraph. Although it seems to answer my two objections, your original problem seems to remain unless you allow for free will and desire as an explanaton. Otherwise, how was it possible for this "tester" to become corrupt?

I don't think the original problem remains. The tester could become corrupt, later on, because the elements necessary for sin (in my hypothesis) are now present whereas before they were not. He was created as a tester, but there was no fallen nature, no fallen world and no tester to tempt him. But once humanity failed his test, the situation changed. Now there was a fallen world to lure him away from his God-given role. And so the theory I am putting out there for critique is that the more and more humanity failed the tests given them by God through the testing angel, the more pride he developed in his profession. The fallen world of man lured him from fulfilling his role for God toward fulfilling his role with his own motives.

In other words,
We know that man's fall impacted all of creation (Which would include a testing agent)
We know that a fallen world can be influential and lead us astray (and could, potentially, lead astray even an angel)
So my original #1 and #2 provoking elements were, indeed, present for the testing angel once humanity fell
My theory resolves the initial problem AND allows for Satan to later 'fall' himself.

[TK]

Matt-

I was wondering if you know of any "mainstream" theologians who embrace your view. I know that Steve G discusses it in his lectures, although I am not sure of exactly where he stands on the issue.

TK

[mattrose]

I don't think I even embrace it! I am more speculating than affirming. I think it's a definite possibility. But I'm not really aware of anyone teaching this other than as a possibility. Of course, I've not heard many teachers teach on the subject of the origin of satan at all.