Was sin in the world before the law was given?

[JohnDBaptiste]

The question is not when angels were created. It is obvious they were created prior to the Earth. The question is when did Satan fall. And according to Genesis 1:31 that had to be after day 6 of creation.

Did it?

Revelation 13:8 (AV)
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Considering that the work on the cross is not only for time but eternity as well...

Colossians 1:20 (AV)
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

 

[JohnDBaptiste]

The sin of angels took place in another realm. The spirit realm. What is now the third heaven since God created the physical realm (IMHO) to deal with sin in the spirit realm and the physical realm.

Doing so, God was starting over from scratch. The first adam / last adam thing again (first creation / last creation). The future heaven and earth with be more or less a melding of the two in the fires of God's judgment into a new heaven-earth. But that's for another debate.

With no further qualifier in this Original Post question, I would take it that this Original Poster was asking about sin in just the physical realm. Paul dealt with this extensively in Romans to say yes there was sin after Adam's fall in the world before the law was given... meaning the law was in effect but it had not yet been given. You have to be careful to consider such factors when getting at the truth about such things.

The progression of God's plan and revelation are quite important. Everything centers on the cross of Christ.

 

[JonC]

Firstly, unless you have a different commentary by Bruce than I have (Tyndale N.T. series) I do not see that Bruce really addresses this question.
Secondly, how do you define the difference between hamartia, 'sin' and parabasis, 'transgression'? Paul says that the law 'was added because of transgressions' (Gal. 3:19), so there must have been transgressions before the law of Moses, suggesting that there was indeed law before Moses, which was the substance of my post.
Thirdly, having agreed with me that any interpretation of Rom. 5:12-14 that contradicts 1 John 3:4 (and indeed, vice versa), you have completely ignored the latter text.

Once again, I apologize that this post is a bit hit-and-run, but I have a busy day today.

No apologies needed, brother. I understand how hectic a day can be.

First, here is how Bruce addresses the question: “But sin is not counted where there is no law: Yet sin was all-pervasive, and mortal in its effect, even in the absence of any positive commandments with penalty attached. Sin manifests itself in the form of specific transgressions when there are specific commandments to be transgressed.” (F.F. Bruce, Romans; TNTC, Inter Varsity Press, 1985, pg. 154).

Secondly, I define “transgression” as sin manifested in the form of specific violations of specific commandments. Sin is a violation of God’s law (whether a violation of God’s given law or not). So all transgression is sin, but there was a time where men sinned without transgressing the law or a specific command. This is why Adam was a transgressor, and why those who transgressed the Law were transgressors, but why Paul highlights that those between Adam and Moses (those not given the law) were not transgressors of the law.

William Barclay also makes this distinction, noting that “In spite of the fact that sin could not be counted against them, they still died. Death reigned over them, although they could not be accused of breaking a non-existent law.”

If you are interested, here are a few more references that are in agreement: John Stott, The Message of Romans, pg. 151; Douglas Moo, Romans, pg. 106, and Thomas Schreiner, Romans (ECNT), pg. 380.

I understand how the segment of Galatians 3:19 you offer could be viewed as a an issue, but if you take the whole verse (indeed, Galatians 3:15-23 as a whole passage) then I think that you'll see the context to support the interpretation I've have offered. The law has been given. Sin transgresses the law. But the law was given because of transgression (in this context, a given law against sin, sin is transgression of the law) in order to keep Israel "in custody." This is why Paul can say "I was once alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died." The Law teaches a person of sin as that sin becomes counted as a transgression of the law. It was to Paul a "schoolmaster" (or "guardian"), which was it's design.

Thirdly, having agreed with you that any interpretation of one passage that contradicts another is wrong, I have not at all ignored 1 John 3:4. John's purpose and context is not the same. To take 1 John 3:4 as a cue to read “infants” into Paul’s words is to take both John and Paul out of context. Again, I’ll offer F.F. Bruce – “The practice of sin is the opposite of the practicing of righteousness which, as John as said in 2.29, characterizes those who have been born into God’s family. Lest someone in the opposite came should interrupt at this point on order to discuss theoretically what is and what is not the nature of sin, John cuts him short with a terse definition, which is adequate for his practical purpose: ‘sin is lawlessness’. The seceders’ ‘new morality’ took little account of divine law or of sin against it; John insists that sin, in the common sense of the term, is rebellion against God. The AV rendering, 'sin is the transgression of the law’ (taken over from the Geneva Bible), is unfortunate, since it suggests the contravention of this or that specific law rather than a generally lawless attitude towards God. Sin is not transgression of law but lawlessness, and lawlessness is sin. It is a convertible or reciprocating proposition, the subject being identified with the predicate.” (F.F. Bruce, The Epistles of John, Eerdman’s, pg. 89).

I hope this helps explain my position more adequately, Martin. None of these verses contradict another, none of these verses speak of infants, and all of these passages support sin as lawlessness but not necessarily transgression of the law (yet all transgression remains sin). We may disagree, but at least our's can be an honest disagreement.

Again, for a better understanding of my position you may find those commentators I offered of interest (F.F. Bruce, William Barclay, John Stott, Douglas Moo, and Thomas Schreiner), as they are more articulate than I.

 

[JonC]

Here are a few more quotes on the topic that may help explain the interpretation I am advocating:

“ the sins which were committed before the law of Moses, were not imputed to the sinners, so as to subject them to death, because the law, which subjects the transgressor to death, was not then in being. Nevertheless death reigned, or they all died, from Adam unto Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression. They had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, because they were not under the law, or covenant of works, as he was: for the law all that space of time was not in being; and therefore they could not sin after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.” (John Taylor, The Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin, 180)

“But sin is not imputed (not counted, not punished) where there is no law ‘nevertheless death reigned form Adam until Moses.’ That is, virtually everybody died. Everybody bore the consequence of sin. Now what is the implication that Paul wants us to see? He wasn’t us to see that universal human dearth was not owing to individual sins against the Mosaic Law, but to man’s sinning in Adam.” (John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ, pg. 94).

“Paul points out that from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, people did not have God’s written laws. Though their sins were “not counted” as infractions of the law, they still died.” (Grudem, Systematic Theology)

 

[Darrell C]

Evil was present but had not entered the physical world which happened when man sinned. A physical and spiritual being. Satan was spiritual only

I would point out a few things to consider:

1. The notion that the Spiritual Realm is a wispy non-physical existence is doubtful;

2. Interaction of those from the Spiritual Realm in this Universe is often seen as physical, not just spiritual;

3. I still need a verse or passage that supports your teaching.


In regards to the underlying issue of whether God created the world and universe good, and whether we need to nullify morality from this good, that just seems fairly clear in Genesis to me. I would think that His Omniscience provides for knowledge of something that was not good had there been something.

you think he is free because walks to and fro.

Not that only. As mentioned before, we see the binding of Satan in Revelation 20 which marks a distinctive point in time where Satan's condition changes.

Secondly, and again, we need to see a passage that correlates Satan's fall and the creation of the universe. We would also need to see Scripture of the suggestion Satan was in charge.

Lastly, consider:


Isaiah 45:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.


This shows the intention of God, that He created the Earth specifically to be inhabited, which more than implies that the Creation of Man and animals was the intended means of this being accomplished.

We have to view what was actually created at that time and there is no mention of Satan.

however he is bound under darkness as the verse says.

This is true of Mankind after the Fall as well, who are said to be prisoners, yet, we do not blur the lines between spiritual darkness one sits under and the actual sentences of punishment which Scripture distinguishes for both man and demons.

He was an "angel that left his first estate" also.

I agree completely. But we are told that some demons are bound, and some are not. The Lord's dealings with demons during His earthly Ministry should confirm that.

Because both these verses are true not contradictions ,which is impossible with scripture., we have to accept both and change our thoughts to accept what scripture says,

Sounds good, but, you have yet to provide any Scriptural support at all. You have simply presented a view you hold to apart from a Biblical Basis. That is what I want to see.

You seem to choose one verse and deny others.

I can only choose that which is actually stated in Scripture.

And I am not aware of any support for the view that Satan was in charge.

Satan had no dominance of the physical, He is a spiritual only being . as demons are today. They enter the physical or ,influence. to affect the physical. . Remember Satan entering the serpent.

Satan is an Angel, and there is no reason why we would not see demons interacting physically as we are told Holy Angels do, such as in Sodom, and in Hebrews:


Hebrews 13:2

King James Version (KJV)

2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.


Scripture indicates that Angels and demons can manifest in physical form, which is no wonder, seeing that the Spiritual Realm is, in my view, far more substantial than our own universe. This Creation is but a shadow of the True, and our understanding of the Spiritual Realm is greatly lacking. But to give this Universe a quality that exceeds that of the Spiritual Realm might be likened to giving an aquarium more substance than the house it resides in, and it's inhabitants likewise.

And we cannot assume that the Spiritual Realm is bound by dimension as our own is. When Satan was cast out of Heaven the assumption is that he was cast into our own Universe, when the likelihood is that his fall preceded the creation of our universe, making it an impossibility that it was here that he was sent. The solution would likely be that being cast out of Heaven, Satan remained in the Spiritual Realm, and then entered our own Universe after the Creation. He is an interloper, not a primary Cast Member, lol.

Adam's dominance , in Eden only,

You said that before and I have to take issue with it. God created a Garden in Eden and placed Adam there, to be sure, but, that does not negate what we are told in Genesis 1:


Genesis 1:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


And God's concluding comment was...it was good.

There is no mention of Satan, Satan was not in charge, so again I ask for Biblical support for your teaching.

Adam's dominance , in Eden only, was not moral perfection but innocence, as our infancy.

Kind of hard to impose such a naïve state to such a powerful creation as Adam.

But morality is not the primary issue. The primary issue would be whether there was sin in the world before the Law was given.

The answer is no. Sin is specifically stated in Scripture as being correlated to the Fall, and Adam's (not Eve's) is listed as the first sin in regards to Mankind and the Earth.

Now think about this, Tom, we know that Satan's sin precedes Adam's both before Creation as well as in the Garden: why is that not said to be the means for the entrance of death?

Because Satan is an interloper, and not relevant to Creation and the Fall from a redemptive perspective. Certainly he played a part, but, we see that his influence was just that, an influence.

The only reason this world exist is to redeem sinners

Not according to Scripture. The intention was that the earth be inhabited, which goes on to God's desire for relationship with His creation.

Your statement suggests that God intended man's fall just so He could redeem them, which would be like me sticking your finger with a pin just so I could put a Band-Aid on your finger, lol. If we did something like that we would receive a particular diagnosis from the psycho-babblers.

Tartarus is the innermost, thus most kept ,part of a famous prison. used to illustrate the type of security by which they are held.

And Satan is not there. Which again causes me to ask for Scripture stating Satan was bound in prison when he fell.

The implication of the previous posts by our friend is that "good" is sinless.

While we might pick that apart based on what we know, the fact remains that we have to answer the question of the OP. That led to the issue of sin in the world before the Fall, then to a morality question.

Could you tell me what you feel would be both good and...sin?

Or how sin can be moral?

although true ,creation could not sin Sin is spiritual, Creation could be affected by sin, as we know through the curse.

Agreed for the most part. But this neglects to account for the Curse itself. Which arose through Adam's sin. That is the central issue.

Again, Adam's was not the first sin, but, it was the first sin in relation to a Redemptive context. Satan is not ascribed culpability for Adam's sin, else the Lord would have punished him alone, end of story.

To accept the perfect physical creation as our goal is Humanism, placing the physical over the spititual.

Has someone even suggested this? I know I have not.

I think you are reading a bit much into what was said. The basic point is that God said it was good, which does not allow for something that was not good. He did not say it was good except for Satan slinking around over there in the shadows.

I think it is just a matter that Satan entered into this Universe from the Spiritual Realm to work his mischief. I see no justification for the suggestion that this Universe was his prison, or is his prison, and I especially see no justification for ascribing a dominion to Satan that is clearly stated as belonging to man in the very first Chapter of Scripture.

As a "prison, mankind is the method whereby pardon from sin is offered

Mankind is not a prison, but a fallen creation of God. The "Prison" is the condition we are born into, which is not something we have or are in, as a structured environment, but, rather, something we do not possess, which was lost in Adam.

That is...relationship with God.

Salvation in Christ remedies that condition by bringing us back into relationship with God, that is why it is called Reconciliation.

Let's leave Satan in his proper place, man in his proper place, and God in His, shall we?


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thanks for your reply, Jon, and also for a meaty discussion. .

First, here is how Bruce addresses the question: “But sin is not counted where there is no law: Yet sin was all-pervasive, and mortal in its effect, even in the absence of any positive commandments with penalty attached. Sin manifests itself in the form of specific transgressions when there are specific commandments to be transgressed.” (F.F. Bruce, Romans; TNTC, Inter Varsity Press, 1985, pg. 154).

It is the same commentary that I have, except that mine is dated 1962 (I picked it up 2nd hand). I feel that it is too brief here to be very helpful (it's quite a slim volume). However, when he writes, "Sin manifests itself in the form of specific transgressions when there are specific commandments to be transgressed" if sin was all-pervasive, it rather suggests that there were indeed specific transgressions.

Secondly, I define “transgression” as sin manifested in the form of specific violations of specific commandments. Sin is a violation of God’s law (whether a violation of God’s given law or not). So all transgression is sin, but there was a time where men sinned without transgressing the law or a specific command. This is why Adam was a transgressor, and why those who transgressed the Law were transgressors, but why Paul highlights that those between Adam and Moses (those not given the law) were not transgressors of the law.

I agree that parabasis, 'transgression,' always involves the crossing of a line or the transgression of the law. But hamartia is a general word for sin and by no means excludes the transgressing of the law. Witness Romans 7:7ff.

I note that you have seen my Robert Haldane and Hendricksen and raised me a Stott, a Moo and a Shreiner (I don't count Barclay as he's rather liberal). I can come back with a Matthew Henry, which suggests that it is a matter of older versus newer hermeneutics (except for Hendricksen, 1982).. The Puritans were very clear that Adam was under the Moral Law in the garden, which I view as an inevitable truth. Is it possible that Adam could have broken the whole Decalogue with impunity and yet brought ruin upon himself and all mankind by eating an apple? I think not! If the Moral Law was in the Garden, then it was also from Adam to Moses.

I want to quote from the Plague of Plagues, republished as a Banner of Truth Puritan paperback under the title The Sinfulness of Sin, by the Puritan Ralph Venning. The book is an extended exposition of Romans 7:13.

"Sin is the transgression of the law, yea of a good law, yea of God's law. Sin supposes a law in being, for where there is no law there is no transgression (Romans 4:15). But where there is sin there is a law, and a transgression of the law. 'Whosoever commiteth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is a transgressing of the law (1 John 3:4). That this is the sin intended in our text is apparent from Romans 7:7.
Now the law not only forbids the doing of evil, whether by thought, word or deed, but also commands the doing of good. So to omit the good commanded is sin as well (or ill) as is the doing of the evil that is forbidden. Against the fruit of the Spirit there is no law, but against the works of the flesh (for the antithesis holds) there is law, for they are all against the law as the Apostle tells us (Galatians 5:19-24). Whatever, then, transgresses the law of God- in whole or in part (James 2:10)- is therefore and therein a sin, whether it break an affirmative or negative precept i.e. whether it is the omission of good, or the commission of evil."

I had hoped to deal with your comments on 1 John 3:4 and Galatians 3:19, which both of which I disagree, in this post, but time has defeated me. I will try to do so either later tonight or tomorrow morning (UK time).

Thanks again for a stimulating discussion.

 

[percho]

The question is not when angels were created. It is obvious they were created prior to the Earth. The question is when did Satan fall. And according to Genesis 1:31 that had to be after day 6 of creation.

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Peter 1:18-20

According to the above, before the foundation of the world it was foreordained the Christ would redeem with blood. And that he was manifested for us/his sheep I guess. What was the Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, before the foundation of the world going to be manifested as? Man? Why would he need to be manifested, period?

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8

Was that why?

Had the devil prior to the foundation of the world been doing his works? The foundation of the world (kosmos), not the same as the creation of the earth.

Would the creation of the first man, Adam need to be, before the Christ could be manifested, to come in his figure Rom. 5:14?

To destroy the works of the devil what would the first man, Adam and the Christ to come in his figure need to be subject to? Hebrews 2:14
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels. Man?


Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Would that also being redemption?) 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for your reply, Jon, and also for a meaty discussion. .

It is the same commentary that I have, except that mine is dated 1962 (I picked it up 2nd hand). I feel that it is too brief here to be very helpful (it's quite a slim volume). However, when he writes, "Sin manifests itself in the form of specific transgressions when there are specific commandments to be transgressed" if sin was all-pervasive, it rather suggests that there were indeed specific transgressions.


I agree that parabasis, 'transgression,' always involves the crossing of a line or the transgression of the law. But hamartia is a general word for sin and by no means excludes the transgressing of the law. Witness Romans 7:7ff.

I note that you have seen my Robert Haldane and Hendricksen and raised me a Stott, a Moo and a Shreiner (I don't count Barclay as he's rather liberal). I can come back with a Matthew Henry, which suggests that it is a matter of older versus newer hermeneutics (except for Hendricksen, 1982).. The Puritans were very clear that Adam was under the Moral Law in the garden, which I view as an inevitable truth. Is it possible that Adam could have broken the whole Decalogue with impunity and yet brought ruin upon himself and all mankind by eating an apple? I think not! If the Moral Law was in the Garden, then it was also from Adam to Moses.

I want to quote from the Plague of Plagues, republished as a Banner of Truth Puritan paperback under the title The Sinfulness of Sin, by the Puritan Ralph Venning. The book is an extended exposition of Romans 7:13.

"Sin is the transgression of the law, yea of a good law, yea of God's law. Sin supposes a law in being, for where there is no law there is no transgression (Romans 4:15). But where there is sin there is a law, and a transgression of the law. 'Whosoever commiteth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is a transgressing of the law (1 John 3:4). That this is the sin intended in our text is apparent from Romans 7:7.
Now the law not only forbids the doing of evil, whether by thought, word or deed, but also commands the doing of good. So to omit the good commanded is sin as well (or ill) as is the doing of the evil that is forbidden. Against the fruit of the Spirit there is no law, but against the works of the flesh (for the antithesis holds) there is law, for they are all against the law as the Apostle tells us (Galatians 5:19-24). Whatever, then, transgresses the law of God- in whole or in part (James 2:10)- is therefore and therein a sin, whether it break an affirmative or negative precept i.e. whether it is the omission of good, or the commission of evil."

I had hoped to deal with your comments on 1 John 3:4 and Galatians 3:19, which both of which I disagree, in this post, but time has defeated me. I will try to do so either later tonight or tomorrow morning (UK time).

Thanks again for a stimulating discussion.

You also have Spurgeon on your side.....which I find a bit depressing..Frown.... We also share an appreciation for Joel Beeke, and he agrees with your position.

The crux of the argument for me is that it does not matter as application in terms of “us.” God’s law is revealed in a form that I believe we would both see as specific commands and our sins are transgressions. Where I view Paul as making a distinction between man’s fallen nature (sinfulness) which carries death and transgressions of the law (in terms of specific commands) in order to explain the difference between the federal headship of Adam and that of Christ, I understand your view that the sins were always transgressions of the law (if not specific commands, that law made known by God).

So in the overall argument of Paul, this may be a significant topic when we approach Paul’s actual purpose (Christ as the final Adam). It also seems that it could be a weightier argument for the Covenant theologian, or at least those who hold that the Law (moral aspects) were always made known to mankind in the form of commandments (as opposed to a general revelation of God’s character).

I have enjoyed this discussion. I’ve also learned much from you and your references (I was not very familiar with your interpretation of Romans 5:12-14). Throughout the course of this conversation I had the opportunity to read other opinions. Thank you for taking the time not only to express your view but to provide references that I could source.

 

[Rob_BW]

What about the everlasting covenant spoken of in Isaiah 24:5? Might it have some bearing on the time before the Mosaic covenant?

The earth is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I understand how the segment of Galatians 3:19 you offer could be viewed as a an issue, but if you take the whole verse (indeed, Galatians 3:15-23 as a whole passage) then I think that you'll see the context to support the interpretation I've have offered. The law has been given. Sin transgresses the law. But the law was given because of transgression (in this context, a given law against sin, sin is transgression of the law) in order to keep Israel "in custody." This is why Paul can say "I was once alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died." The Law teaches a person of sin as that sin becomes counted as a transgression of the law. It was to Paul a "schoolmaster" (or "guardian"), which was it's design.

In Gal. 3:15-18, Paul is saying that the Mosaic Law cannot annul the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. So what's the purpose of the Law? It was added because of transgressions. It was added to restrain transgressions by the knowledge of God's law. Therefore there must have been a pre-existing law to be transgressed. This is what Paul is speaking of in Romans 2:14-15. In Romans 7:9, Paul is saying, I think, that once he felt secure, under no conviction of sin because the full implications of the law had not registered with him. But once the commandment came home to him, that is, when he fully realised what the law demanded, that was the end of him as a self-righteous Pharisee. But that does not mean that the law did not pre-date Paul.

Thirdly, having agreed with you that any interpretation of one passage that contradicts another is wrong, I have not at all ignored 1 John 3:4. John's purpose and context is not the same. To take 1 John 3:4 as a cue to read “infants” into Paul’s words is to take both John and Paul out of context.

I did not use 1 John 3-4 to speak of infants. Romans 5:14 speaks of those who had not sinned according to the transgression of Adam. Adam's 'transgression' is referred to as 'sin' in v.12 (and paraptoma, 'trespass' in v.17). Who are they that have not actually transgressed/sinned/trespassed personally but yet suffer the wages of sin because of imputation? Infants.

Again, I’ll offer F.F. Bruce – “The practice of sin is the opposite of the practicing of righteousness which, as John as said in 2.29, characterizes those who have been born into God’s family. Lest someone in the opposite came should interrupt at this point on order to discuss theoretically what is and what is not the nature of sin, John cuts him short with a terse definition, which is adequate for his practical purpose: ‘sin is lawlessness’. The seceders’ ‘new morality’ took little account of divine law or of sin against it; John insists that sin, in the common sense of the term, is rebellion against God. The AV rendering, 'sin is the transgression of the law’ (taken over from the Geneva Bible), is unfortunate, since it suggests the contravention of this or that specific law rather than a generally lawless attitude towards God. Sin is not transgression of law but lawlessness, and lawlessness is sin. It is a convertible or reciprocating proposition, the subject being identified with the predicate.” (F.F. Bruce, The Epistles of John, Eerdman’s, pg. 89).

1 John 3:4, NKJV. 'Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.' Bruce does not do well here. These people are not just without law; they practise lawlessness. They actively pursue a lawless course. The 'man of sin' is described as the 'lawless one' in 2 Thes. 2:8-9. I have a wonderful 19th Century book called New Testament Synonyms by Archbishop Chevenix Trench (what a great name!). According to Trench, 'anomia is (with the sole exception of 1 Cor. 9:21) never the condition of one living without the law, but always the condition or deed of one who acts contrary to law.' "Depart from Me, you who practise lawlessness!" For me, the practice of lawlessness can only mean the transgression of the law.

 

[TomLaPalm]

I would point out a few things to consider:

1. The notion that the Spiritual Realm is a wispy non-physical existence is doubtful;

2. Interaction of those from the Spiritual Realm in this Universe is often seen as physical, not just spiritual;

3. I still need a verse or passage that supports your teaching.


In regards to the underlying issue of whether God created the world and universe good, and whether we need to nullify morality from this good, that just seems fairly clear in Genesis to me. I would think that His Omniscience provides for knowledge of something that was not good had there been something.




Not that only. As mentioned before, we see the binding of Satan in Revelation 20 which marks a distinctive point in time where Satan's condition changes.

Secondly, and again, we need to see a passage that correlates Satan's fall and the creation of the universe. We would also need to see Scripture of the suggestion Satan was in charge.

Lastly, consider:


Isaiah 45:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.


This shows the intention of God, that He created the Earth specifically to be inhabited, which more than implies that the Creation of Man and animals was the intended means of this being accomplished.

We have to view what was actually created at that time and there is no mention of Satan.





This is true of Mankind after the Fall as well, who are said to be prisoners, yet, we do not blur the lines between spiritual darkness one sits under and the actual sentences of punishment which Scripture distinguishes for both man and demons.




I agree completely. But we are told that some demons are bound, and some are not. The Lord's dealings with demons during His earthly Ministry should confirm that.




Sounds good, but, you have yet to provide any Scriptural support at all. You have simply presented a view you hold to apart from a Biblical Basis. That is what I want to see.




I can only choose that which is actually stated in Scripture.

And I am not aware of any support for the view that Satan was in charge.




Satan is an Angel, and there is no reason why we would not see demons interacting physically as we are told Holy Angels do, such as in Sodom, and in Hebrews:


Hebrews 13:2

King James Version (KJV)

2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.


Scripture indicates that Angels and demons can manifest in physical form, which is no wonder, seeing that the Spiritual Realm is, in my view, far more substantial than our own universe. This Creation is but a shadow of the True, and our understanding of the Spiritual Realm is greatly lacking. But to give this Universe a quality that exceeds that of the Spiritual Realm might be likened to giving an aquarium more substance than the house it resides in, and it's inhabitants likewise.

And we cannot assume that the Spiritual Realm is bound by dimension as our own is. When Satan was cast out of Heaven the assumption is that he was cast into our own Universe, when the likelihood is that his fall preceded the creation of our universe, making it an impossibility that it was here that he was sent. The solution would likely be that being cast out of Heaven, Satan remained in the Spiritual Realm, and then entered our own Universe after the Creation. He is an interloper, not a primary Cast Member, lol.




You said that before and I have to take issue with it. God created a Garden in Eden and placed Adam there, to be sure, but, that does not negate what we are told in Genesis 1:


Genesis 1:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


And God's concluding comment was...it was good.

There is no mention of Satan, Satan was not in charge, so again I ask for Biblical support for your teaching.





Kind of hard to impose such a naïve state to such a powerful creation as Adam.

But morality is not the primary issue. The primary issue would be whether there was sin in the world before the Law was given.

The answer is no. Sin is specifically stated in Scripture as being correlated to the Fall, and Adam's (not Eve's) is listed as the first sin in regards to Mankind and the Earth.

Now think about this, Tom, we know that Satan's sin precedes Adam's both before Creation as well as in the Garden: why is that not said to be the means for the entrance of death?

Because Satan is an interloper, and not relevant to Creation and the Fall from a redemptive perspective. Certainly he played a part, but, we see that his influence was just that, an influence.




Not according to Scripture. The intention was that the earth be inhabited, which goes on to God's desire for relationship with His creation.

Your statement suggests that God intended man's fall just so He could redeem them, which would be like me sticking your finger with a pin just so I could put a Band-Aid on your finger, lol. If we did something like that we would receive a particular diagnosis from the psycho-babblers.




And Satan is not there. Which again causes me to ask for Scripture stating Satan was bound in prison when he fell.




While we might pick that apart based on what we know, the fact remains that we have to answer the question of the OP. That led to the issue of sin in the world before the Fall, then to a morality question.

Could you tell me what you feel would be both good and...sin?

Or how sin can be moral?




Agreed for the most part. But this neglects to account for the Curse itself. Which arose through Adam's sin. That is the central issue.

Again, Adam's was not the first sin, but, it was the first sin in relation to a Redemptive context. Satan is not ascribed culpability for Adam's sin, else the Lord would have punished him alone, end of story.




Has someone even suggested this? I know I have not.

I think you are reading a bit much into what was said. The basic point is that God said it was good, which does not allow for something that was not good. He did not say it was good except for Satan slinking around over there in the shadows.

I think it is just a matter that Satan entered into this Universe from the Spiritual Realm to work his mischief. I see no justification for the suggestion that this Universe was his prison, or is his prison, and I especially see no justification for ascribing a dominion to Satan that is clearly stated as belonging to man in the very first Chapter of Scripture.




Mankind is not a prison, but a fallen creation of God. The "Prison" is the condition we are born into, which is not something we have or are in, as a structured environment, but, rather, something we do not possess, which was lost in Adam.

That is...relationship with God.

Salvation in Christ remedies that condition by bringing us back into relationship with God, that is why it is called Reconciliation.

Let's leave Satan in his proper place, man in his proper place, and God in His, shall we?


God bless.

That is a long post, I am sorry I do not know how to multiple quote. These verses will address your statements
Jesus said the physical and spiritual are different
Jhn 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
and
Eph 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Spiritual /Physical interaction
Luk 8:30
And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said,Legion: because many devils were entered into him.

If a word study of darkness is preformed , the timing becomes evident , especially when compared to light as it is in Heaven. We know Satan was in Heaven and there is no darkness there since Light is from the throne. In Gen 1 1-3 , we see darkness until Light was . Since that moment, Light has existed, (not light from our sun which is later). To be expelled into darkness (which is fitting for a being associated with light) When could Satan have been cast into darkness except verse 3.

I didn't say creation was not good , just not dealing with moral issues. It is good, as God wanted, for God's purpose redemption of sinners.

Mankind is not a prison, Mankind is how sinners are saved, Through the shared death of Jesus.
By one man , sin entered the physical world, or all the world participates in sin. But by one man , we all have the opportunity to be pardoned.

Pardon the rambling, but the last statement shows your fundamental error, You separate Satan and man, yet we are both in the same place ,at the same time, in the same condition.. neither can leave, both spiritual beings. awaiting the same destination , unless a man repents Are we also the bad guys in this narrative?

 

[JonC]

In Gal. 3:15-18, Paul is saying that the Mosaic Law cannot annul the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. So what's the purpose of the Law? It was added because of transgressions. It was added to restrain transgressions by the knowledge of God's law. Therefore there must have been a pre-existing law to be transgressed. This is what Paul is speaking of in Romans 2:14-15. In Romans 7:9, Paul is saying, I think, that once he felt secure, under no conviction of sin because the full implications of the law had not registered with him. But once the commandment came home to him, that is, when he fully realised what the law demanded, that was the end of him as a self-righteous Pharisee. But that does not mean that the law did not pre-date Paul.


I did not use 1 John 3-4 to speak of infants. Romans 5:14 speaks of those who had not sinned according to the transgression of Adam. Adam's 'transgression' is referred to as 'sin' in v.12 (and paraptoma, 'trespass' in v.17). Who are they that have not actually transgressed/sinned/trespassed personally but yet suffer the wages of sin because of imputation? Infants.

1 John 3:4, NKJV. 'Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.' Bruce does not do well here. These people are not just without law; they practise lawlessness. They actively pursue a lawless course. The 'man of sin' is described as the 'lawless one' in 2 Thes. 2:8-9. I have a wonderful 19th Century book called New Testament Synonyms by Archbishop Chevenix Trench (what a great name!). According to Trench, 'anomia is (with the sole exception of 1 Cor. 9:21) never the condition of one living without the law, but always the condition or deed of one who acts contrary to law.' "Depart from Me, you who practise lawlessness!" For me, the practice of lawlessness can only mean the transgression of the law.

It is obvious that we simply will not agree here, and I believe that it is just as obvious that we each have strong positions upon which to stand. I appreciate that you have taken such time to explain your views.

F.F. Bruce is saying that whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness. He is not stating they are “without the law” but that “they practice lawlessness in terms of their attitude towards God. Sin is lawlessness and lawlessness is sin.” In other words, people are not sinners because they transgress the law, but they transgress the law because they are sinners.

The significance is marked if we return to Romans 5 and reexamine what it means to have sinned in Adam. I believe that men are sinners apart from the law. They have inherited from Adam a fallen, sinful nature that cannot please God. Through Adam’s transgression sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. It is not that men violate a commandment or law that makes them sinners, but that humanity itself is in a state of rebellion against God. We were sinners before we committed the first transgression. And apart from ever transgressing a law, we are justly subject to death because of sin.

 

[OldRegular]

On another thread I commented that death came through sin and sin in the world before the law was given. This was quickly countered as unbiblical by several brothers. I respect that these men have different interpretations than I, and so as not to hijack that thread I thought I’d see if someone could explain their objection here. Like John Stott on this verse, I thought it clear (I don’t fully see the grounds for objection).

Sin entered the world with the disobedience of Eve!

 

[JonC]

Sin entered the world with the disobedience of Eve!

I disagree.Genesis 2 seems clear that the command was to Adam (Eve was yet to be created) and Genesis 3 seems clear that the responsibilities was squarely on Adam. But more clear, in my view, is Paul's explanation that sin entered through Adams transgression.

Here are some of the reasons I disagree:

1) This is what Paul states in Romans 5:12-14 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. So to me this a matter of the authority, inspiration, or accuracy (or all three) of Scripture.

2) The reason Paul states that sin entered the world through the transgression of Adam is, IMHO, that this illustrates Adam as the federal head of natural man. But he is the federal head because sin entered the world through him and in him (Adam, not Eve) men are sinners.

3) As stated, I believe Paul illustrates that men are sinners even before they break a commandment. I know many disagree on this point, but it is another reason I reject that sin entered the world through Eve's disobedience. Adam transgressed a direct commandment from God.

4) In that act of transgression, Adam serves as a type. Paul tells us that Jesus is the "second" or "last" Adam. Just as sin and death were introduced through Adam's transgression, so is life introduced through the obedience of Christ.

 

[Darrell C]

That is a long post, I am sorry I do not know how to multiple quote.

There are quoting instructions on this forum, and it is unfair to your antagonists not to learn how to do this. This reply does not maintain the context of the discussion which leads to circular discussion that never accomplishes anything. This is not desirable in a Christian Community and one of the reasons why certain issues are interminably debated, lol.

I would suggest you learn how to properly quote out of consideration for other members and the importance of handling the Word of God and it's teachings.

And if I sound like a nag, sorry, lol, it's just my opinion...

These verses will address your statements
Jesus said the physical and spiritual are different
Jhn 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

This is not really relevant to the questions posed to you, Tom. You have implied that this universe is Satan's prison and that he is in charge (in a context of Creation).

This has no application to Satan at all, because there is no possibility for Satan or any other Angel to be born again. That is the context of this statement. It applies only to man as does the Creation account.

and
Eph 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Again, not relevant to the focal points already discussed. That spiritual beings interact with this world is not contested. What is contested is that this Universe is Satan's Prison and that he was in charge.

Spiritual /Physical interaction
Luk 8:30
And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said,Legion: because many devils were entered into him.

Again irrelevant.

If a word study of darkness is preformed , the timing becomes evident , especially when compared to light as it is in Heaven.

We have several implications of darkness having several applications.

You are presenting them as only one.

The darkness that fell on the earth is different from the darkness that lay on the earth when it was created. One pertains to the Universe whereas the other pertains to that which can be said to be moral, and refers to the sin (in general) which was not present in the darkness that this world/universe lay under.

We know Satan was in Heaven and there is no darkness there since Light is from the throne.

So Satan did not sin in Heaven? Why then was He cast out?

And that is the precise problems we will run into if we make blanket statements apart from context.

I agree, this darkness was not found in Heaven...


Ezekiel 28:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.


...it was found in Satan, who was presumably in Heaven.

In Gen 1 1-3 , we see darkness until Light was . Since that moment, Light has existed, (not light from our sun which is later). To be expelled into darkness (which is fitting for a being associated with light) When could Satan have been cast into darkness except verse 3.

And there is no moral aspect to that darkness, which would not be the case if it was a prison for Satan.

This darknessis not given a quality such as we see when darkness represents separation from God.

I didn't say creation was not good , just not dealing with moral issues. It is good, as God wanted, for God's purpose redemption of sinners.

If the Universe was Satan's Prison then it would not be good.

Mankind is not a prison, Mankind is how sinners are saved, Through the shared death of Jesus.

Mankind is presented as a prison:


Isaiah 42:6-7

King James Version (KJV)

6 I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.


Now what is it that we are delivered from if not the humanity we are born into?

We are not prisoners simply because we are in this world or universe, but prisoners to the very nature we are born into.

That is what Christ came to free us from, and our redemption culminates in redemption from our bodies.

By one man , sin entered the physical world, or all the world participates in sin. But by one man , we all have the opportunity to be pardoned.

So what is that world? Does Christ redeem the rocks, trees, and waters? The world is subject to the curse but the world that now is that can be said to correlate to redemptive purpose will pass away, yielding to a new creation, thus nullifying it as a literal object of redemption.

Only man stands as a recipient of Redemption ultimately.

Pardon the rambling, but the last statement shows your fundamental error, You separate Satan and man,

For good reason, lol. Satan is an Angel fallen, a completely different entity than man, as all Angels are.

yet we are both in the same place ,at the same time, in the same condition..

Still does not support your teaching, Tom.

neither can leave, both spiritual beings. awaiting the same destination , unless a man repents

And the difference is the fate of demons is set, and they have no part in redemption.

Are we also the bad guys in this narrative?

Yes of course, for there is but One Who is Good, that is, God.

Shall we ascribe a character to man that Scripture does not? Are not all found to be contrasted from God? And even among Angels, do we find among their ranks one that stands beside God?

Of course the answer is no, and the general principle Scripture teaches is that man is fallen, and the contrast between he and the righteous and holy nature of God is just a constant theme.

And it is because men think they are the "good guy" that they deny this basic truth. We judge ourselves according to others who are, in our minds, "far worse than we." But the truth is there is no "good" in us, that is the reason we are in need of redemption. We have "good" in us when we have God in us, and this is something that takes place in regeneration.

Hey, if you need any help learning quoting procedure let me know. You owe it to yourself to learn how to do this as well. You'll be glad you did.


God bless.

 

[percho]

I disagree.Genesis 2 seems clear that the command was to Adam (Eve was yet to be created) and Genesis 3 seems clear that the responsibilities was squarely on Adam. But more clear, in my view, is Paul's explanation that sin entered through Adams transgression.

Here are some of the reasons I disagree:

1) This is what Paul states in Romans 5:12-14 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. So to me this a matter of the authority, inspiration, or accuracy (or all three) of Scripture.

2) The reason Paul states that sin entered the world through the transgression of Adam is, IMHO, that this illustrates Adam as the federal head of natural man. But he is the federal head because sin entered the world through him and in him (Adam, not Eve) men are sinners.

3) As stated, I believe Paul illustrates that men are sinners even before they break a commandment. I know many disagree on this point, but it is another reason I reject that sin entered the world through Eve's disobedience. Adam transgressed a direct commandment from God.

4) In that act of transgression, Adam serves as a type. Paul tells us that Jesus is the "second" or "last" Adam. Just as sin and death were introduced through Adam's transgression, so is life introduced through the obedience of Christ.

Also

and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came, 1 Tim 2:14 YLT and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety. 15

Is that in bold because it will be through the seed of the woman, the Christ will come and that is how she is ultimately the help meet of the man? Through the Christ the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, will be given?

 

[JonC]

Sin entered the world with the disobedience of Eve!

Also

and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came, 1 Tim 2:14 YLT and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety. 15

Is that in bold because it will be through the seed of the woman, the Christ will come and that is how she is ultimately the help meet of the man? Through the Christ the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, will be given?

Yes, that is a good point that Adam was not deceived. I wonder if Adam's transgression would be "sinning with a high hand"? His act resulted in a sin that wouldn't be forgiven, but that necessitated a new act of creation (natural man dies).

I am not sure about the 1 Timothy quote. I think that another context exists where the woman is the help mate of the man (this purpose was established prior to the Fall, also man and woman becoming "one flesh"......I'm just not sure).

 

[percho]

Yes, that is a good point that Adam was not deceived. I wonder if Adam's transgression would be "sinning with a high hand"? His act resulted in a sin that wouldn't be forgiven, but that necessitated a new act of creation (natural man dies).

I am not sure about the 1 Timothy quote. I think that another context exists where the woman is the help mate of the man (this purpose was established prior to the Fall, also man and woman becoming "one flesh"......I'm just not sure).

Here is a thought. The woman was taken from the man as his help meet. Were they one flesh before she was taken from him? Of course we ae told , after she was taken from him they should cleave to one another and become one flesh. Obviously, I think a reference to sexual union. Did they cleave before or after sin entering the world, which brought the death.

Yes, that is a good point that Adam was not deceived. I wonder if Adam's transgression would be "sinning with a high hand"? His act resulted in a sin that wouldn't be forgiven, but that necessitated a new act of creation (natural man dies).

I am not sure about the 1 Timothy quote. I think that another context exists where the woman is the help mate of the man (this purpose was established prior to the Fall, also man and woman becoming "one flesh"......I'm just not sure).

Here is a thought. The woman was taken from the man as his help meet. Were they one flesh before she was taken from him? Of course we are told , after she was taken from him, they should cleave to one another and become one flesh. Obviously, I think a reference to sexual union. Did they cleave before or after sin entering the world, which brought the death?

Another thought.
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Gen 2:9

Did the tree of life actually grow out of the ground? John 6:53,54 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. Is the Son of Man, Jesus the tree of life?

Did the tree of the knowledge of good and evil actually grow out of the ground? The verse before, out of the ground of verse 9, Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Was the man (the ἄνθρωπον) the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Gen 3:1-6 the serpent, the woman, the man of her, her husband) V6 she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. James 1:14,15 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth the death. Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

This was the help meet of ἄνθρωπον, ánthrōpos, man. Was that purpose greater than being a mate and was that purpose tresspassed bringing sin in the world and death the the man, ἄνθρωπον who had been created/made a little lower than the angels?

One more thought. I wonder why Abel was the first to suffer, dying thou dost die, when he is the very first spoken of, by faith Abel?

BTW I am just asking what you think, not believe.

Just some thoughts and wondered what you thought.

 

[TomLaPalm]

There are quoting instructions on this forum, and it is unfair to your antagonists not to learn how to do this. This reply does not maintain the context of the discussion which leads to circular discussion that never accomplishes anything. This is not desirable in a Christian Community and one of the reasons why certain issues are interminably debated, lol.

I would suggest you learn how to properly quote out of consideration for other members and the importance of handling the Word of God and it's teachings.

And if I sound like a nag, sorry, lol, it's just my opinion...




This is not really relevant to the questions posed to you, Tom. You have implied that this universe is Satan's prison and that he is in charge (in a context of Creation).

This has no application to Satan at all, because there is no possibility for Satan or any other Angel to be born again. That is the context of this statement. It applies only to man as does the Creation account.




Again, not relevant to the focal points already discussed. That spiritual beings interact with this world is not contested. What is contested is that this Universe is Satan's Prison and that he was in charge.




Again irrelevant.




We have several implications of darkness having several applications.

You are presenting them as only one.

The darkness that fell on the earth is different from the darkness that lay on the earth when it was created. One pertains to the Universe whereas the other pertains to that which can be said to be moral, and refers to the sin (in general) which was not present in the darkness that this world/universe lay under.




So Satan did not sin in Heaven? Why then was He cast out?

And that is the precise problems we will run into if we make blanket statements apart from context.

I agree, this darkness was not found in Heaven...


Ezekiel 28:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.


...it was found in Satan, who was presumably in Heaven.





And there is no moral aspect to that darkness, which would not be the case if it was a prison for Satan.

This darknessis not given a quality such as we see when darkness represents separation from God.




If the Universe was Satan's Prison then it would not be good.




Mankind is presented as a prison:


Isaiah 42:6-7

King James Version (KJV)

6 I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.


Now what is it that we are delivered from if not the humanity we are born into?

We are not prisoners simply because we are in this world or universe, but prisoners to the very nature we are born into.

That is what Christ came to free us from, and our redemption culminates in redemption from our bodies.




So what is that world? Does Christ redeem the rocks, trees, and waters? The world is subject to the curse but the world that now is that can be said to correlate to redemptive purpose will pass away, yielding to a new creation, thus nullifying it as a literal object of redemption.

Only man stands as a recipient of Redemption ultimately.




For good reason, lol. Satan is an Angel fallen, a completely different entity than man, as all Angels are.




Still does not support your teaching, Tom.




And the difference is the fate of demons is set, and they have no part in redemption.



Yes of course, for there is but One Who is Good, that is, God.

Shall we ascribe a character to man that Scripture does not? Are not all found to be contrasted from God? And even among Angels, do we find among their ranks one that stands beside God?

Of course the answer is no, and the general principle Scripture teaches is that man is fallen, and the contrast between he and the righteous and holy nature of God is just a constant theme.

And it is because men think they are the "good guy" that they deny this basic truth. We judge ourselves according to others who are, in our minds, "far worse than we." But the truth is there is no "good" in us, that is the reason we are in need of redemption. We have "good" in us when we have God in us, and this is something that takes place in regeneration.

Hey, if you need any help learning quoting procedure let me know. You owe it to yourself to learn how to do this as well. You'll be glad you did.


God bless.

I have to abide by anthers format to allow a antagonist to do what?
lot of words, a lot of bluff , little basis

Show me a verse that says angels/demons cannot be redeemed (there is not one by the way)
In a similiar fashion, we know hell (eternal torment) was made for the Devil and his angels, why would man be sent there? Was God not able to prepare a place with man in mind?


There is a moral analogy for darkness
Jhn 3:19
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, andmen loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
and in Jude


If you believe that God chooses to redeem only men and chooses not to save other sinners of His creation then you cannot believe this verse:
Act 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Are you saying God prefers man to angels?

Did God put the darkness in Satan in heaven? Are you now blaming God for creating sin in a person?

Eze 28:14

Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Eze 28:15

Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
.
He took a third of the "angels" with him.
He was a prisoner that once had a large group in his responsibility.

to reiterate, Satan sinned long ago, before Light was formed. That suggests that Heaven was created long before the universe. Jon 38:7

Why is Satan here? We are only given one reason that suggest why anyone is here, held in darkness , awaiting judgement, Some sinners at God;s timing and conditions are offered pardons .

The universe was not morally good/bad before Adam sinned but sin was here in the person of Satan and the fallen angels. The universe was and is a "place of the spiritually dead. that Jesus Himself said "let the dead bury their dead"
Mankind (the shared death of Christ) offers sinners redemption.

 

[Darrell C]

I have to abide by anthers format to allow a antagonist to do what?
lot of words, a lot of bluff , little basis

Not at all, you are free to post as you see fit, however, because you do not provide the context by quoting your antagonist's statement you are referring to, you are left to make irrelevant responses and statements as well as ignore pointed questions posed to you.

Just as you do in this response.

And you have still not answered my request for Scripture suggesting that this universe was Satan's prison or that Satan was in charge.

All of this, and still no answer. It would be harder to avoid those questions if you properly quoted. So just a little friendly advice, which as I said, is really for your own benefit.

Show me a verse that says angels/demons cannot be redeemed (there is not one by the way)
In a similiar fashion, we know hell (eternal torment) was made for the Devil and his angels, why would man be sent there? Was God not able to prepare a place with man in mind?

There is one, and you actually mention it...


Matthew 25:41

King James Version (KJV)

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:


Are you saying that you believe that Satan and his demons could actually be redeemed despite the Lord's statement?

Do you feel that this universe is, or contains...that everlasting fire? It would be hard to suggest that seeing this universe will pass away.

There is a moral analogy for darkness
Jhn 3:19
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, andmen loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
and in Jude

Nothing I have ever said denies that.

We have several implications of darkness having several applications.

You are presenting them as only one.

The darkness that fell on the earth is different from the darkness that lay on the earth when it was created. One pertains to the Universe whereas the other pertains to that which can be said to be moral, and refers to the sin (in general) which was not present in the darkness that this world/universe lay under.

And I would not need to repost this had you quoted me.

Your response takes the discussion in a circle, and I am telling you, nothing is ever going to be accomplished like that. Not for you, not for your antagonist.

Are you saying God prefers man to angels?

Again, no context, but, to answer this question, no, nothing I have said even hints at that.

The simple fact is that for demons, Satan included, their fate is sealed. And we can reasonably say that for the Holy Angels, the same is true. If that is to change there is nothing in Scripture that indicates it will, and we fall into speculation.

Did God put the darkness in Satan in heaven? Are you now blaming God for creating sin in a person?

I already answered this:

So Satan did not sin in Heaven? Why then was He cast out?

And that is the precise problems we will run into if we make blanket statements apart from context.

I agree, this darkness was not found in Heaven...


Ezekiel 28:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.


...it was found in Satan, who was presumably in Heaven.

Did God put the darkness in Satan in heaven? Are you now blaming God for creating sin in a person?

Again, answered in the above statement. Had you quoted me, I find it hard to imagine that you would have wasted your time typing much of this.


Continued...