Is Satan's 1st Sin even Possible?

[Paidion]

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)

Wow! This is a reversal! It wasn't Satan that influenced man to become corrupt. It was man that influenced Satan to become corrupt.

[mattrose]

Yes, it is, in that sense, a big reversal.

Of course, Satan was an 'influence' at the original fall in my theory too. And he's an 'influence' in lots of subsequent sins. So it's more like "Satan influenced man to become corrupt AND man influenced Satan to become corrupt." Perhaps it's a both/and instead of an either/or.

And while i'll admit that this is a fairly shocking 'reversal' (so to speak), I think it makes logical sense. Truth be told, we, as humans, corrupt ALL SORTS of morally neutral things. Sex. Money. Etc. I'm not saying satan is a direct parallel to such things, but the idea of humanity having a negative impact on a created reality is hardly absurd.

[darinhouston]

When God created the physical world, after each day of creation, He was pleased and "saw that it was good." We read that when He had completed the six days of creation:

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. Gen 1:31

Do you suppose that when God having created Lucifer was pleased and that He saw that Lucifer was also good? Or did He create Satan as Satan and was pleased that he was evil? As I see it, the former is true. All that God created was good, including man. But man through his own rebellion became evil, and his nature became corrupt. The same with Lucifer.

God does not create moral evil.

Why is it that we always equate "Creation" as everything created by God. I'm sure there's some subtlety in the Hebrew, but isn't it possible that considering the context of the Genesis account that therefore the statements about Creation are limited to the physical Creation as described in Genesis and not the metaphysical created beings and spiritual realities also created by God ?

The same could go for "beginning" couldn't it ? "In the beginning" and "from the beginning" could both be referring to creation of our world/universe and it's possible that the devil was created before the world/universe and wasn't a murderer from "before" the beginning, isn't it? What does seem clear, though, is that he was a murderer (and therefore corrupt) before man's first sin/fall. We just don't know a lot about before or beyond that limited creation account.

[mattrose]

When God commanded that a lying spirit be sent to Ahab so he'd venture toward his death, was He wrong to do so? When God commanded the Israelites to annihilate various people groups, was He wrong to do so? I have always been under the impression that God is, indeed, allowed to take back the lives that He has created at any time He chooses.

If God chose to create a testing angel that even had the ability to take a life (if God allowed it), would God be 'wrong' to do such a thing? Is He free to do so? I think He is. The statement that the devil was a murderer from the beginning doesn't, in my mind, militate against the idea that He was created as a testing angel from the get go. It's a bit uncomfortable, but that might simply be the product of being sold the traditional view for so long.

[steve]

I am jumping in here pretty late. It seems that this thread grew rather rapidly!

Matt's theory sounds plausible, though we have to work with an almost total absence of biblical data. It makes sense, and, I suppose, cannot be disproved.

As for God only creating good things, some things can be "good" in the sense that their existence serves a good purpose, but "bad" from the standpoint of its influencing wrong choices on the part of humans. For example, a multiple choice test gives one right answer and, perhaps, three wrong options. It is not good for the student being examined to choose any of the three incorrect options. In one sense, each of these options is "deceptive" in that it suggests a wrong answer alternative to the right one. If the student chooses a wrong answer, that was "bad" for the student. However, from the standpoint of the examining professor, the presence of those three incorrect options was "good" and necessary for the purpose of testing the student's actual grasp of the material.

The temptation to betray Joseph (succumbed to by his brothers) was clearly not good from the standpoint of the brothers (they "intended evil"), though it was something God saw as suited to a good purpose ("God meant it for good")—Genesis 50:20.

Is it good for mankind to undergo testing? It is if testing is what God wishes for mankind to undergo. In which case, making a "tester" is making a "good" thing, in one respect, and may even be included in the created things that God surveyed and declared "good."

In another example from creation, was it "good" that God created a woman, who became the temptress of Adam, encouraging his fall? Yes, she was among the things declared to be "good", in Genesis 1. In fact, before she was made, the situation was "not good that man should be alone." Without Eve, there might never have been an effective temptation of Adam—but without her (or another like her) there would not have been a human race either.

I am not making an analogy between Satan and Eve, except to say that, even when God declared that all things were "good," there were present all of the elements that contributed to man's fall—a serpent, a forbidden tree, a strong attachment to a gullible wife, a liking of fruit, a free will...etc. If the testing of man was what God desired, then the presence of a testing agent would seem to be a good thing, just as, if God wanted man to be fruitful and multiply, the presence of a wife (through whom temptation eventually reached the man) was a "good" and necessary thing.

On the question of why God would destroy Satan and not reward him for carrying out his assignment, I suppose one answer that could be suggested is that Satan is not human. He was not made in God's image, nor designed to enjoy eternal communion with God, any more than the animals (or even the plants) were. He was created as a separate order of being, who can expect no eternal reward for fulfilling his purpose any more than can sea lions expect eternal rewards for providing food for great white sharks.

Having said all of this, I don't profess to know the exact circumstances of Satan's creation, nor his original condition. I am only providing such answers as seem plausible to me to the questions you raised.

[Sean]

On the question of why God would destroy Satan and not reward him for carrying out his assignment, I suppose one answer that could be suggested is that Satan is not human. He was not made in God's image, nor designed to enjoy eternal communion with God, any more than the animals (or even the plants) were. He was created as a separate order of being, who can expect no eternal reward for fulfilling his purpose any more than can sea lions expect eternal rewards for providing food for great white sharks.

I've thought about this question before and Steve's answer is the same as mine. I also think Matt's idea makes sense. But that makes me wonder if Satan ever knew good and evil "like God". I guess since angels have sinned then maybe so.

Jesus died for the sins of mankind. So it makes me wonder why would Jesus death free Satan or demons? When Jesus walked the earth a demon asked Him if He had come to torment them before the appointed time. Interesting that they didn't ask or seem to expect some sort of salvation from the appointed time of torment. I wonder if it's possible that Satan, like the grass of the field, is here today but tomorrow is cast into the fire. In other words Satan is a tool (like grass, we don't feel bad when we burn grass for a fire or kill an animal for food do we?), not a fallen being in need of redemption.

It seems that there would be no other way of being able to test man, except for a tester be created. If there was another way, I suspect God would have gone that route instead.

[Paidion]

The same could go for "beginning" couldn't it ? "In the beginning" and "from the beginning" could both be referring to creation of our world/universe and it's possible that the devil was created before the world/universe and wasn't a murderer from "before" the beginning, isn't it? What does seem clear, though, is that he was a murderer (and therefore corrupt) before man's first sin/fall. We just don't know a lot about before or beyond that limited creation account.

That's how I see it, Darin. The statement that Satan was a murdererer from the beginning does not necessarily mean from the beginning of his existence.

On the question of why God would destroy Satan and not reward him for carrying out his assignment, I suppose one answer that could be suggested is that Satan is not human. He was not made in God's image, nor designed to enjoy eternal communion with God, any more than the animals (or even the plants) were. He was created as a separate order of being, who can expect no eternal reward for fulfilling his purpose any more than can sea lions expect eternal rewards for providing food for great white sharks.

Yes, Satan was a different order of being from man, but hardly similar to sea lions and sharks. He was, in fact, closer in nature to man than he was to sea lions, in that he was created rational, as were the other angels. The angels which did not fall with Satan, presumably will continue to exist and serve God forever. Whether or not we consider this to be "an eternal reward" for carrying out their purpose, the point is, they will continue in the service of the Lord. So why not Satan, if he continues in his function as "tester"? Is it because God will no longer need a "tester"? Maybe so. But then why will He need "the good angels"? What function will they serve "in eternity"? Or is it possible that they will be annihilated too?

It is true that if a machine, or an animal is no longer needed, we might destroy it. Some people also destroy other people when they are no longer needed. But to do so is morally wrong.

Somehow, I don't see such the act of destroying a rational being just because he is no longer needed,in keeping with God's character. A righteous person wouldn't do it, and surely God is at least as good as any righteous person.

[mattrose]

Steve said...

Matt's theory sounds plausible, though we have to work with an almost total absence of biblical data. It makes sense, and, I suppose, cannot be disproved.

I'm of the opinion that both the traditional AND non-traditional views of the origin of satan work with an almost total absence of biblical data. And, thus, if my theory makes 'sense' I consider it to have a leg up on the traditional view which doesn't make much sense to me (as this thread shows).

Thanks so much for all the feedback so far

[Troy]

Matt (& Steve?),

To be honest, I am having a hard time seeing how there is any significant difference between your hypothesis and the traditional position. For example, the traditional view of the origin of the devil has him being a good angel who became prideful. Thus, as pride began to form, he fell and became corrupt. While rejecting this, you seem to be constructing a similar picture with only minor differences. In essence, you are positing a tester that, though performing his role well, became prideful in his role to test. Hence, he started to want them to fail, and desired [as an outworking of his fall?] to control them. Control is something that is the prerogative of God, and satan wanted to be like God.

So here is what we are looking at:

The traditional view starts out with a good angel. The good angel becomes prideful, and rebels against God and falls.
This alternative view starts out with a tester (should we presume he was created good, neutral, or evil?). He becomes prideful, developed a desire to want humans to fail [rebel] and thus gets away from God's original intent for his existence (can you explain how this is not "a fall" in any sense).

Moreover, you say God wanted them his creatures made in His image to pass the test. Though I think this is interesting, I must confess I have a hard time seeing why God would create such a "tester" with the sincere longing for his creatures to pass the tests, if God also had infallible knowledge of the evil that was inevitable to happen if He created such tester. In other words, If God certainly knew that this "tester" would become corrupt and be the presence behind the evils that would accompany his activities, why would God "unleash" such a being into the world? Was God genuinely sincere in wanting His creatures to pass the test while knowing they wouldn't from the start?

[mattrose]

Matt (& Steve?),

To be honest, I am having a hard time seeing how there is any significant difference between your hypothesis and the traditional position.

Hey Troy

I never purposed for my theory to be ENTIRELY different from the traditional view. My goal was not to come up with something that was shockingly different, but something that made sense of the doctrinal dilemma that I found in the traditional view. The departures from tradition are subtle and yet, I think, important in that they eliminate conundrums. I think you summarized the subtle difference pretty well in your 1st & 2nd paragraphs.

Now, let me make a few quick points about how my subtle changes from the traditional view make a difference
1) They explain HOW satan 'went bad' (the problem pointed out in my opening post)
2) They eliminate an unnecessarily HIGH view of satan, held by many evangelicals (that he was a great angel, perhaps even the worship leader in heaven)
3) They provide and even HIGHER view of the value of tests in life (in contrast to many who preach 'health and wealth' and that pain is an evil thing)

If God certainly knew that this "tester" would become corrupt and be the presence behind the evils that would accompany his activities, why would God "unleash" such a being into the world? Was God genuinely sincere in wanting His creatures to pass the test while knowing they wouldn't from the start?

When anything becomes corrupt, there is still a root purity in its foundation and, therefore, a reason for God NOT to annihilate it (or, as you suggest, never create it to begin with). God created sexuality. It has become corrupt. But, apparently, God sees the value of sexuality (a powerful symbol of our union with Christ) to be worth the potential and actual corruption. God created food. Many people are gluttons. But, apparently, God sees the value of food (a powerful symbol of our dependence on God) to be worth the potential and actual corruption. He's sincere in His good desires through all of this, few would doubt. Your question can't just apply to this theory about satan, it reaches to the very question of any aspect of creation. And God passes the test of sincerity all around.