Greetings to all my brothers in Christ.
The Irrelevant Distinction of Satan’s Inward Corruption
It would seem that it is a common error among even the most studied and astute to make irrelevant distinctions when contemplating the steps in the logical order of Satan’s fall. Many, it would seem, have this tendency to make a distinction that inward corruption precedes external acts of corruption. This is a distinction that makes no difference for those who seek God’s word on the topic of Satan’s fall. This irrelevant distinction, as it relates to Satan’s first fall, must be put to bed.
As an example to critique, let's go to GotQuestions. GotQuestions writes…
We know that the angels were created before the earth (Job 38:4–7). Satan fell before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden (Genesis 3:1–14). Satan’s fall, therefore, must have occurred somewhere after the time the angels were created and before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Whether Satan’s fall occurred hours, days, or years before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden, Scripture does not say. GotQuestions.org
Now this statement by GotQuestions is the norm and not the exception, it would seem. Let’s look at the reasoning of the GotQuestions statement.
5. Angels were created before the earth (Job 38:4-7). [Correct]
6. Satan fell before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden (Genesis 3:1-14). [Error]
7. Therefore, Satan’s fall must have occurred somewhere after the time of the angels were created
and before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. [Error because of #6]
First, either GotQuestions assumes a position right out of the gate by saying “Satan fell before he tempted Adam and Eve”, or GotQuestions left out some really important steps in their reasoning. Let’s assume the latter and fill in some gaps.
- Satan’s first recorded act of rebellion was in the garden of Eden (Gen chpt 3).
- All external physical acts instantaneously and necessarily follow from the internal determinations, preferences, and volition of the soul.
- Additionally, the Holy Scripture tells us that if one lusts after a man’s wife, then he has already committed adultery in his heart.
- 4a. Therefore Satan must have first sinned internally, within his heart, before his sin of an external physical act. For a man’s choice logically precedes a man’s actions.
So far our reasoning appears sound. Most, if not all, would agree with 1-4. But what does this irrelevant but true point have to do with Satan falling if the biblical text explicitly gives us the act and the curse in Genesis 3?
Does GotQuestions, in their #6, want to assume our previous #1-4a? Surely they are not outright suggesting that there is logically and necessarily an outward act before the first recorded outward act in Genesis. So at first blush, it would seem they might be assuming our 4a, however, their reasoning appears to assume much more.
If one goes back to 1-4, one discovers that an external act always follows an internal choice. Therefore, if Satan outwardly tempted Eve, that outward tempting followed an internal choice to tempt. This logical succession of internal choice and outward act necessarily follows one another immediately (or relatively immediately). There are no “hours”, “days”, or “years” that separate the two.
So what GotQuestions wants to assume (or insert) that doesn’t actually follow from 1-4, is that there may have been premeditation on the part of the serpent. Premediation weighs options, outcomes, reviews data of possible goods and bads. So GotQuestions wants to add to 4a…
4b. Therefore Satan must have first sinned internally, within his heart, before his sin of an external
physical act. For a man’s choice logically precedes a man’s actions.
ADDITIONALLY, choices
may include premeditation. Premediation is the antecedent process that presents motives for
choices, this premeditation could have taken hours, days, or years.
The problem is we still cannot jump from 1-4b plus 5-6 and say that it follows that Satan committed some other outward act of rebellion prior to his deception of Eve. So GotQuestions appears to want to also add…
4c. Therefore Satan must have first sinned internally, within his heart, before his sin of an external
physical act. For a man’s choice logically precedes a man’s actions. ADDITIONALLY, choices
may include premeditation. Premediation is the antecedent process that presents motives for
choices, this premeditation could have taken hours, days, or years.
FURTHER, it follows that if Satan’s
premeditation lasted a year then there could have been some other outward act of rebellion before the deception
of Eve (for who can go through a year of inward corruption and not sin outwardly).
It would appear that we have now flushed out the logic of this concept, or the lack of it. The reasoning wants to suggest that because of what we laid out in 1-4c, “there could be some other fall before the recorded fall of tempting Eve.” But what kind of sound study principle is that? Let's look at that logic…
- Satan tempted Eve and was cursed.
- Inward corruption precedes outward acts of corruption.
- Since inward corruption precedes outward acts of corruption. There could have been some other outward act of corruption prior to the outward act of deceiving Eve.
- Therefore, there was likely another outward act of corruption that preceded the outward act of deceiving Eve.
This logic just laid out, above, fails. It confuses and blurs inward and outward corruption. It does not follow, leads to an infinite regression if taken to the extreme, and cannot be proven, i.e., that another physical action happened before Satan deceived Eve simply because inward corruption precedes outward acts of corruption. It is pure speculation based on some kind of Motte and Bailey reasoning.
Motte and Bailey Falacy
Motte and Bailey reasoning combines a hard-to-defend view (the bailey) with an easily proven statement or view (the motte). When the hard-to-defend view is criticised or challenged, there is a retreat to the safe view to avoid the difficulties of the hard-to-defend view.
- Satan fell prior to the recorded fall in Genesis 3. [the bailey]
- Inward corruption precedes outward acts of corruption. [the motte]
Infinite Regress at It’s Extreme
If one strictly maintains that every outward act requires an inward act that then demonstrates that another outward act follows then the chain never ends.
- To deceive Eve (outward act A), Satan needed an inward corruption.
- If that inward corruption must be proven by a prior outward act B.
- Then outward act B requires its own inward corruption.
- That inward corruption would then require a prior outward act C, and so on forever.
Imagine a judge hearing a case on robbery. The prosecutor tells the judge that he has physical evidence that the individual stole something from the store. The prosecutor says, we have evidence of the act of robbery at a specific location. But then the judge says, this external act of robbery necessarily followed from an internal choice, which is also a crime. Further, since the man is 42 years old, we don’t know exactly when this criminal choice to commit this robbery was first conceived. It could be hours, days, or years prior to the robbery. It is therefore possible that this man committed other crimes, and since it is possible, we should then conclude that he actually did commit other crimes. Go out and find any clues that might suggest there were other crimes that this individual has surely committed.
In conclusion, the distinction that Satan’s inward corruption precedes Satan’s outward act of deceiving Eve means nothing, reveals nothing, suggests nothing, and adds nothing of value to the Genesis 3 text and what God is telling his readers, the faithful. Genesis 3 explicitly gives the reader the first outward act of rebellion, the first and only curse given by God to Satan. It does not imply, suggest, or hint that there was any other act of rebellion prior to this one first act in Genesis 3. Especially due to any fact that inward choices precede any outward acts.
Peace to you brothers
