1-27 Man As A Sinful Creature

Q. You spent quite a bit of time on questioning the origin of Satan and the question of whether God could create such a being. My question is, God did not create man a sinful creature, did He? God created man along with the rest of creation, He looked at him, and he was very good, he was exactly what He wanted. Man was not a sinful creature at that point.

A. He was very good, yes.

Q. But he became a sinful creature later by his own action; therefore he was cut off from God, he was cast out of the garden, cast from God's presence because of what he became after his creation by what he did to himself. Therefore, God created a being originally with the intent of his being good, if that being later on chooses to rebel and reject God, I don't see God being responsible for that being's evil. I don't see God being responsible for my sin, I am, because it is something I do of my own choice. If there is a being that is satan who has chosen to rebel against God and reject Him, and try to destroy the rest of God's creation, God's not responsible for his evil.

(Comment from floor - You got a question?)

Just a response to that observation.

A. Okay, I'm not sure what your question wasbut I think you've made a few points there on the idea that the devil basically went his own way and God, I think you used the word intended, God intended him to be good but he ended up pretty bad. Now that's okay in regard to man because God made him good but he sought out many inventions. But the problem is with the idea of the devil is that you are talking about a supernatural being there. To say that God intended this supernatural being to be a force for good and he ended up a force for evil, if what's you're saying is true, then we really saying the presence of evil or sinfulness was not really part of God's plan. God actually intended - that's the word you used - God intended something else for man, but it all turned out sinful. Now that's a big assumption you are making.
You seem to be arguing for the idea that Satan did actually fall, which is what I put to Mark and he didn't want to answer. But it seems what you're saying is that satan did fall. Now, if you are saying that Satan fell, well, where does it say that? If you say that Satan fell back in Eden and it is that which led to the temptation of Adam and Eve, well, you're completely without a shred of any Biblical evidence. That's of course the classical orthodox position that Satan fell in Eden, or just before Eden, and then was the tempting agent within the snake, which again would mean that the devil should have been punished when God meted out the judgments to the snake, and to the man and to the woman. Well, why didn't the devil get paid off as well? I mean there is no hint, the words devil and Satan don't occur in Genesis.
In a sense you are being intellectually honest, because you are coming back this conclusion that there must have been a fall, that Satan must have fallen, but that just opens up more problems. For one thing, the scriptures don't say anything about Satan falling in the Garden of Eden. For another thing, it talks about satan falling several times -Luke 10 in the ministry of Christ and Revelation 12 in the future. Now nowhere does it say satan fell in the Garden of Eden, and the whole language of falling from heaven must be used figuratively. For example Lucifer was thrown out of heaven. It means the King of Babylon was thrown. And you accept that, I think the CGAF don't dare use Isaiah 14 about Lucifer to prove their idea about the devil being thrown out. I mean that's a sort of Jehovah's Witness business. I think you understand quite clearly that Lucifer being thrown out of heaven does not have any reference to the devil being thrown anywhere. So you accept the thing thrown out of heaven is symbolic, and so when it talks about Satan being thrown out of heaven in Luke 10 and Revelation 12, I think surely there you must also, if you are consistent, you must accept that also is a symbolic fall from power. It can't be taken to prove any literal floating down of Satan down onto this earth and tempting Adam and Eve. So the point is, by one man, Adam, sin entered the world, and death by sin, and Romans 5, as I said, six times uses that phrase, 'by one man' and he is highlighted as the origin of sin. Again you have to actually prove that the snake was sinful, if you are on about this business about the snake being related to the satan and the satan falling which is the line you are arguing down then you've got, apart from proving the connection between the angel and the snake, you've got to prove that the snake was a real sinner. I would argue that the snake was amoral, that it didn't actually have moral sensibilities, it spoke - the phrase we have in English anyway - he speaks as his belly guides him, he says whatever comes into his head, he uses his natural instincts, not necessarily sinfulness.