The good, the bad, and the fallen

[christopher]

I must've missed your comprehensive survey of scripture and sound logic ...would you mind repeating?

Of course you find the idea of God creating a tester from the get go the weaker position, that's why you don't hold it. But others find it the stronger position. Where does that leave us?

Ithink I'm not being clear about what I mean by "responsible". I do believe that God uses all things (even those things that He is not directly responsible for) for His good. But another way to say what I was trying to say is that God doesn't create "rapists". He creates people that can then choose to become rapists. I think this logic applies to all of his creation, and think the evidence is in favor of this.

And I have 3 boys who are capable of playing on the freeway and killing themselves in the process. However, if I allow them to do that when I have the power to stop it, what is my responsibility?

Okay, how about a much clearer passage that says the same thing?

John 16:7-11

7But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

Again, God cannot condemn a person who had no choice but to be evil.

Indeed this is much less symbolic and therefore a stronger case for Satan (yes, I accept "the prince of this world" as a Satan reference) being condemned. But the passage says nothing of his "torment" or "forever and ever" at all. For all we know, God will merely destroy the tempter when He no longer has a use for him.

I don't understand your response here. Apparently you must entertain a distinct idea of what demons are (as opposed to satan). What would that idea be?

I made no such positive assertion, only challenged your assumption that....

On a related note, if demons are to be said to be like satan, and merely "testers" send by God, then why are demons likewise judged and punished by God for something they cannot help, but were rather sent to do?

I merely asked who has said that the "demons are said to be like satan". You haven't answered that, only turned it into another socratic question (which you're very good at by the way....and I mean that as a compliment .)

[Josh]

Indeed this is much less symbolic and therefore a stronger case for Satan (yes, I accept "the prince of this world" as a Satan reference) being condemned. But the passage says nothing of his "torment" or "forever and ever" at all. For all we know, God will merely destroy the tempter when He no longer has a use for him.

Condemnation implies guilt.

It's amazing how close you're veering to Calvinism here, Chris

You're the one who convinced me that God does not impute guilt.


Regarding demons, the same logic applies. They are clearly condemned, so they must have had a choice, which means they could have been good, which means they must have been created good originally.

I must've missed your comprehensive survey of scripture and sound logic ...would you mind repeating?

You're reading it. It starts on page 1 of this thread

[robin]

Condemnation implies guilt.

Can't condemnation also mean fate, or even an adverse destiny without implying guilt?

Animals are "condemned" to death, are they guilty? Sasha (my Golden retriever) suffer and died of cancer, but I can assure you she was guilty of nothing. She was condemned from the day she was born, like any other animal, but that in no way implies guilt. I don't think you can establish guilt by condemnation. I think we can only call something guilty if we establish that they had a free choice. This is why our justice system treats the mentally retarded differently than someone who clearly understands their choices. What evidence do we have that Satan was created free?

It's amazing how close you're veering to Calvinism here, Chris

Why? Calvinism is generally used to refer to man's destiny, not Satan's. If God created a tester for humanity, and chose to destroy this tester of humanity when there was no long a need for him, could God not still have created man free?

[Josh]

Can't condemnation also mean fate, or even an adverse destiny without implying guilt?

Animals are "condemned" to death, are they guilty? Sasha (my Golden retriever) suffer and died of cancer, but I can assure you she was guilty of nothing. She was condemned from the day she was born, like any other animal, but that in no way implies guilt.

Any definition of condemned that doesn't include guilt is a stretch.
The Greek words for condemn/condemned include guilt in their definition:

• Kataginosko
to find fault with, blame to accuse, condemn o

• Katadikazo
to give judgment against (one), to pronounce guilty to condemn

• Kataginosko
to find fault with, blame to accuse, condemn

• Katadikazo
to give judgment against (one), to pronounce guilty to condemn <

• Katakrino
to give judgment against, to judge worthy of punishment to condemn by one's good example to render another's wickedness the more evident and censurable

However, the word that the NIV translates in John 16:11 is actually the word "judgment", which can mean:


to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose
to approve, esteem, to prefer
to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion
to determine, resolve, decree
to judge
to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong
to be judged, i.e. summoned to trial that one's case may be examined and judgment passed upon it
to pronounce judgment, to subject to censure
of those who act the part of judges or arbiters in matters of common life, or pass judgment on the deeds and words of others
to rule, govern
to preside over with the power of giving judicial decisions, because it was the prerogative of kings and rulers to pass judgment
to contend together, of warriors and combatants
to dispute
in a forensic sense
to go to law, have suit at law


Admittedly, only some of these definitions clearly imply guilt. However, if you look again at the context of John 16:11, it is indeed guilt which is the emphasis:

8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned [judged]

I don't think you can establish guilt by condemnation. I think we can only call something guilty if we establish that they had a free choice. This is why our justice system treats the mentally retarded differently than someone who clearly understands their choices. What evidence do we have that Satan was created free?

The evidence we have is that he (and the demons) are judged/ condemned/ and punished, a thing that could not be unless they were able to choose otherwise.

The reason this is like Calvinism is that you are postulating that God could create beings who can do no other than evil and who are automatically damned for it.

[Josh]

I never thought this strange verse in Jude would come in handy in a theological debate, but here's another one to add to the mix:

Jude 1:9

But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

A rebuke implies error. How can Satan be rebuked unless he is a free will* agent?

*and personal

[Kirby]

I wish I would have been at pubagetics for this convo.

Unless I am mistaken, from what I've read here, it seems as if you are all applying the same "rules" for condemnation, free will, guilt, et al. to angels as they would be applied to humans. Although angels (fallen or not) are also part of God's creation, why do the same rules apply?
This issue needs to be viewed through a different lens. Angels exist in a different "dimension" (so to speak) than man. Different rules apply. I think this is backed up by 1 Peter 1:12 "even angels long to look into these things".
Scriptural or any other natural evidence can only apply to the world that we know. I think it is fruitless to try and determine this, since the fate of fallen angels is based on a completely different system than the fate of fallen man.

What made me think in this way was the fact that if there is free will and condemnation, then there would have to be an opportunity for redemption, no?
Does Lucifer or any other fallen angel have the opportunity to be redeemed? Not that we know of, in fact, I would think most of us would say no.
However, man does. If redemption can't go both ways, then how can free will and condemnation?

It's discussions like these that lead me down the "Satan doesn't really exist" track. My free will is enough to condemn me, I don't need a condemned fallen angel tricking me into it...

[christopher]

Whoops..I forgot I owed a response on this.

Condemnation implies guilt.

It's amazing how close you're veering to Calvinism here, Chris

You're the one who convinced me that God does not impute guilt.

Ok, so first of all, I'm not veering anywhere. I haven't taken a position remember?

We don't know what kind of being Satan is, how much "free will" he has, or whether or not he was created good. He was said to be a murder "from the beginning" (the human history part you choose read into that statement notwithstanding). God makes no apologies for sending lying spirits, or testing his people with false prophets. And if it serves His purposes (and ours), it can be said to be good.

Kirby wrote:

Unless I am mistaken, from what I've read here, it seems as if you are all applying the same "rules" for condemnation, free will, guilt, et al. to angels as they would be applied to humans. Although angels (fallen or not) are also part of God's creation, why do the same rules apply?

That's a very good point Kirby! I was going to say something similar myself.

What made me think in this way was the fact that if there is free will and condemnation, then there would have to be an opportunity for redemption, no?
Does Lucifer or any other fallen angel have the opportunity to be redeemed?

Another great point!

I don't see any problem with the word condemnation being applied to a being who was made as a tester. Buildings are condemned, laws are condemned, even abstracts like "sin" are said to be condemned (Rom 8:3). It doesn't have to mean anything more that something or someone is ordered (sentenced) to be destroyed.

I don't see an iron clad case for Satan turning good to bad. I think it could be viewed either way.

[Josh]

Unless I am mistaken, from what I've read here, it seems as if you are all applying the same "rules" for condemnation, free will, guilt, et al. to angels as they would be applied to humans. Although angels (fallen or not) are also part of God's creation, why do the same rules apply?

God doesn't have to grant us eternal life, he chooses to do so. It would not contract his character to condemn us for our sins without chance of repentence (which may be the case for fallen angels)

However, whether it's angels or humans, punishing someone for something they can't control is wrong... in all possible scenarios. It's against His nature.

This is the strongest argument against Calvinism, and it applies on this topic equally well.

[Josh]

So, guys, ought we to thank satan for his testing? After all, he is merely a servant of God. Even though he influences the most heinous of crimes, hey, he's really working for God!

[Josh]

So, can I get a clear statement from you on this Chris (and others)?

Do you think it would be wrong for God to punish a person for something they cannot help but do?

[Josh]

Another point:

If demons are merely another tool in God's workshop, why do angels fight other angels? (Daniel 10, Revelation 12)

Seems like a waste of energy if they're all working for God in their own ways.

[Josh]

For what it's worth, here is evidence from the 1st century of Jewish belief that satan has actually sinned:

"Through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who are on his side suffer it" -Wisdom of Solomon, 1st Century

"The devil is of the lowest places... and he became aware of his condemnation and of the sin which he had sinned previously. And that is why he thought up the scheme against Adam." -2 Enoch (possibly as early as the 1st Century)

One more thought: why curse the snake if it was doing God's complete bidding?

[robin]

Jun 10, 2010 19:24:35 GMT -8 Josh said:

So, guys, ought we to thank satan for his testing? After all, he is merely a servant of God. Even though he influences the most heinous of crimes, hey, he's really working for God!

We should thank God for his wisdom in allowing humanity to be tested.

Do you find fault in God for allowing such a creature as Satan reek havoc on humanity?

[robin]

Chris Wrote:

I don't see any problem with the word condemnation being applied to a being who was made as a tester. Buildings are condemned, laws are condemned, even abstracts like "sin" are said to be condemned (Rom 8:3). It doesn't have to mean anything more that something or someone is ordered (sentenced) to be destroyed.

This is exactly the point I was making above, and Josh responded with the following Verse.

8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

In other conversations you relied on Revelation 20 to make your point about the judgment of Satan. Is it you view that the judgment referred to in John 16 is the same as that in revelation?

The way I read it, Jesus is telling his disciples that the Holy Spirit would come and convict humanity of man's sin, the righteousness of Jesus (being made evident by the fact that He ascended to the father), and that the prince of this world (Satan) stands condemned. The guilt is referring to humanity, and not Jesus, or Satan. Jesus seems to be making a statement of facts regarding himself and Satan. If sin, righteousness, and judgment are all referring to guilt, how would you apply this rule to Jesus' righteousness by ascending to the father? Is this also a result of guilt?

[Josh]

Do you find fault in God for allowing such a creature as Satan reek havoc on humanity?

Allowing is much different than commissioning.

8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

In other conversations you relied on Revelation 20 to make your point about the judgment of Satan. Is it you view that the judgment referred to in John 16 is the same as that in revelation?

John 16 is talking about the day of Pentecost (and I suppose the whole church age). After Jesus' death and resurrection, Satan was decisively pronounced condemned, and even bound, but I believe he is yet to be formally judged and destroyed yet (Rev. 20).



8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

Here's my own paraphrase of what I think this John 16 passage is saying:

When the Holy Spirit comes, he will make all mankind aware of their guilt by showing them sin for what it really is, righteous for what it is, and the certainty of the coming judgment on sin. He will make them aware of their sin at last because men did not believe in Jesus when he came; he will make them understand righteousness because Jesus will not longer be here in the flesh to emulate it; and he will make them see the certainty of the coming judgment of their sins by demonstrating that satan has already been judged for his own sin/ rebellion.

It doesn't make sense to me for him to be saying, in effect, "he will convict you of your sin and possible condemnation by showing you that he's already decided to destroy one of his own errand boys who was doing nothing wrong, or at least nothing he couldn't help"

[robin]

It doesn't make sense to me for him to be saying, in effect, "he will convict you of your sin and possible condemnation by showing you that he's already decided to destroy one of his own errand boys who was doing nothing wrong, or at least nothing he couldn't help"

We don't know the nature of Satan. I guess I don't have a problem with God destroying one of his creations when it has served it's purpose. Satan would not necessarily be punished for choosing evil, but rather he is destroyed with everything else that is not fit for eternity when it's time had come. Revelation 20 tells us that the Devil, death and hades were all thrown into the lake of fire. I think this is just John's way of saying that these things are to be destroyed when there is not longer any need for them.

Animals and pets may fall into the same category. We have no guarantee that our pets will be resurrected and live eternally with us in heaven, and I assume that if they do not we will not find fault in god for "punishing" our animals for doing nothing wrong.

[robin]

Allowing is much different than commissioning.

But why did God allow it?