I have a few questions, and I would like whoever would attempt answering them to give each question sound consideration before responding. I wouldn't like half baked or regurgitated answers but answers that are the product of deep and serious reasoning. Also, I wouldn't like this to devolve into an insult fest, so if you feel strongly about certain things, bridle your tongue - or fingers.

1) Can God sin? Someone has already asked this question on another thread, but I want to look at it in greater perspective. Let's back it up a little - when God said "let's create man in our image", it should follow that God just wasn't talking about physical form. It's also about cognition and character. One of God's characteristics is perfection, and if Adam and Eve were created perfect, how come they still sinned? If they were created perfect and yet sinned, can we logically deduce that God can also commit what we regard as sin?

"But they were tempted", is the response I can see some have prepared. Well, let's back it up a bit further, to the Father of sin, the devil or lucifer (there are arguments that lucifer is not the devil but that is a digression here). Now Lucifer was an angel in heaven and committed the sin of pride. If God created everything in heaven and everything in heaven is perfect, how come Lucifer sinned, in spite of being a creature of perfection? Was he also tempted to think himself as greater than God? If that was the case, who tempted him (remember, a perfect being) to see himself as comparable with God? And by extension, is it possible that angels in heaven can still be tempted to fall right now?

2) Will God Take Away Free Will after Christ's second coming? Pursuant to my previous question on Lucifer's fall, one might be tempted to say God gave him free will and that was why he chose to consider pride in his heart. However, what is to say that after Christ's second coming, and people have been ruptured and death and the devil have been cast in hell, someone else in heaven wouldn't also get corrupted? Would it mean, by making heaven, your free will will be taken away so that you only do and think what God wants you and so we don't have another situation of someone getting proud and the same cycle starting all over again?

3) Who really tempted Eve? In spite of the fact that we generally believe that it was the devil that tempted our first parents, the Bible never expressly said so. It only said the serpent was wily and cunning but it never said it was possessed by the devil. Even when they were being cursed, the serpent was never addressed as the devil and, if the serpent was possessed by the devil, then we truly can't blame it for its actions as it was just serving as a channel for something more powerful than it to operate, hence, there would have been no need to curse the serpent as well. So how come the serpent, if it wasn't possessed by the devil, could tempt Adam to sin? If we do say that the serpent was possessed by the devil or was the devil, how come God allowed the devil into his garden of perfection, knowing that it's distinctly possible that the devil would also tempt his creation to sin and also knowing what the consequences of the success of such a venture would be? If it wasn't the devil, then would it follow that serpent was "smarter" than both Adam and Eve, in knowing what was what and what God had placed in the garden. That would also mean the serpent had a higher level of cognition and thought than the first humans, which would make it closer to God in a particular likeness than they were.

Ogoski, these are very deep questions.

Especially the first one. That one too deep so I no go comment yet make I no drown. Lol.

I think freewill shall always exist. I think that the presence of a hell, which citizens of heaven can always see, will be enough to discourage anyone from rebelling against God ever again. It's just like that funny quote by that your Ugandan role model "You have freedom of speech but freedom after speech, that I cannot guaranty." Lol.

I think that the serpent simply refers to Satan or Lucifer in the story of Adam and Eve.

Hello,
I can help you answer some of these questions. They are indeed thoughtful questions. I will post my first responses shortly.

nuwell:
Hello,
I can help you answer some of these questions. They are indeed thoughtful questions. I will post my first responses shortly.

That would be nice. Would be waiting.

First, I'll answer your question, "Can God sin?". This question is needless had it been you have an understanding of what sin is. However, you'll learn of it today from your bible.

Yes, it is true that everything was created perfect in the beginning, including Lucifer who is today Satan. Of how he became who he is today is because he broke the rules of engagement (terms of contract) set by his Lord. How? By desiring to overthrow God from His throne. Listen, "How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How are you cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations! For you have said in your heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High. Yet you shall be brought down to hell [the “grave”—see verses 9 and 11], to the sides of the pit"- ISAIAH 14:12-15.

Notice, "for you have said in your heart". Lucifer actually conceived of this rebellion in his heart, and this is in complete harmony with the teaching of Jesus here, "And He said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within, and defile the man” (MARK 7:20-23). Once Lucifer was tempted (note: temptation is simply the DESIRE to do something, especially something wrong or bad; compromise), i.e, by entertaining this wrong thought in his heart, sin was born. (Read Ezekiel 28:15-19 to learn more about Lucifer).

Having been cast off and strip of his magnificence, Lucifer (now Satan) set out to make sure that subsequent creation (humans) will have the same fake as his, hence, why he deceived our first parent to toe his line. Adam, just like Lucifer, was also presented with the same rules of engagement that was set before Lucifer, and we know how it all went.

Now, what is sin and what I mean rules of engagement. 1 JOHN 3:4, " Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law". There you have it. Sin is the transgression (breaking) of the Law. Like the vast universe, God has laws that govern His relationship with His creations. And once broken, comes with automatic penalty attached to it. Consider the law of gravity. If you jump or fall off from a high building, the end result is either death or broken limbs; the penalty is automatic. This same penalty is applicable to God's spiritual laws. And what is this penalty? Romans 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death....". So, the rules of engagement that Lucifer broke was the commandments, and once this was done, the penalty sets in.

So to your question again, "Can God sin"? The answer is an emphatic no! God can't break His own Laws and yet expects His creations to keep them. Why? Not just because He is God and is subject to none; but because He is a God of righteousness!!!

POSTSCRIPT: I'll answer all of your other questions and make clarification where it is not cleared, when I have the time. Cheers!

To your questions, senbonzakurakageyoshi,

Sin is foremost and fundamentally, rebellion against God – against His love and leadership. The subsequent vices which are visible evidence of this state of affairs in a man’s heart and which are more popularly acclaimed by humans, are only the symptoms of a much deeper problem – a disconnect from God. Sin is the transgression of the law – God’s law.

God cannot therefore, sin because He cannot rebel against Himself. He cannot deny Himself. He is the very essence of Life, and all life flows from Him. He has created all things for and with a purpose which He had decided before He brought anything into being. This is analogous to how man creates products, by first determining what purpose it will serve, and then designing it to fulfil and satisfy that purpose. God then, is the standard of uprightness and righteousness, the deviation from which is termed sin.

Sin then, is analogous to a creation breaking out of its purpose, again analogous to the malfunctioning of a product from its designed function. Ordinarily, man-made products are fashioned after and sustained on a set of physical laws which are fairly predictable and unchanging. So for instance, a car will continue to serve its purpose and fulfil its design characteristics as long as it is maintained in a manner prescribed by the maker, who is usually also able to fix any faults that may develop in the cause of its use. But that is only as far as the analogy goes.

The human being however, is unlike any man-made product because he has freewill and his life and existence is permanently tied to his Creator’s. This freewill is a gift of God to man in creating man in His image and likeness. Who then, is better positioned or qualified to instruct a person in the use of his freewill than the God who has soundly exercised this same inherent ability in creating the man and endowing him with same quality?

So, all through the Bible, God presents to us the options we have, either to live for Him or on the contrary, live for ourselves; death or life, while recommending to us the best use of our freedom of choice. Unfortunately, people want to exercise their freewill without the responsibility for the consequences. The deception of the day is that there is such a thing as absolute freedom – freedom without responsibility...

...This death like sin, is fundamentally what happens when a man cuts himself off from God and Life. He loses his purpose and becomes disoriented and disillusioned. He must now seek affirmation from other sources other than from his Creator and Father, God. It is from this condition that a man having lost everything that matters and who literally has nothing more to lose will lash out at himself and others, in a fruitless bid to acquire some measure of affirmation. Hence, the source of all the vices humans then recognize as sin.

The choice that was made in the garden was a choice of death over life - a choice to heed contrary counsel other than the counsel of God. Even having been warned of the consequences of such a choice (and like every choice) it was a wilful, deliberate decision of man to disobey God and hence, rebel against His wisdom and discretion, in instructing the man He created how to use the freewill with which he had been gifted.

When the serpent asked, ‘has God indeed said...’, his purpose was to cast aspersions on the integrity and wisdom of God in leaving instructions for the conduct of the man, to discredit God before the man. Once again, the man had the choice to reject such suggestions and stick with his original set of instructions, trusting that God who created him, appointed him to the station in which he found himself as well as the provisions to prosper in the purpose for which he was created, had sound judgement in establishing such guidelines. So, being tempted to rebel is not the sin. Because we have freewill, we will always be confronted with options to explore what’s beyond the boundaries of God’s instructions. Deciding to rebel is the seal of the sin.

In distrusting God’s intentions, man also literally cast aspersions on his own existence and acquired an insecurity complex that stripped him of his confidence. It is obvious even in modern society how this cancer afflicts men.

2. Freewill will remain inherent in man after Christ returns, but it will be exercised discreetly by people who have submitted their will to God’s will. Now that is another recommendation for what to do with freewill. The state of affairs will be as it was in the garden with the first man – free to will otherwise but willing to obey God. One difference I foresee is that we will not be oblivious of the devil’s devices, and he would have been permanently incarcerated in the lake of fire, never again to deceive men.

Here’s an analogy of freewill in the context of which we are speaking:
A parent buys his toddler a biscuit he has promised him, and returns to present the biscuit to the child. The child receives the biscuit and is delighted with the gift in its entirety – the packaging as well as the prospect of relishing the contents. But after the euphoria has passed, he wants to explore the contents now. Now, imagine that the parent requests for the biscuit either to open the packaging for him or for whatever reason, and the child petulantly declines, distrusting the intentions of the parent who made the gift available in the first place?

While we can dismiss this as foolishness only a child can exhibit, it is an analogy of how we react to God. We are delighted to receive His gifts but don’t want to be instructed in how to enjoy and maximise them.

The people who will reign with Christ will be people who have by reason of God’s training and exercise, become mature to discern good from evil; people who with their will acknowledge and approve the righteousness of God and His ways.

We approve of the intelligence of creation all around us but think that our own existence is not equally and even so much more, deliberate, for whom the rest of creation was created. It is indeed a travesty and a monumental deception, the likes of which only the devil can concoct.

Is this helpful so far?

For further illustration...

nuwell:
...This death like sin, is fundamentally what happens when a man cuts himself off from God and Life. He loses his purpose and becomes disoriented and disillusioned. He must now seek affirmation from other sources other than from his Creator and Father, God. It is from this condition that a man having lost everything that matters and who literally has nothing more to lose will lash out at himself and others, in a fruitless bid to acquire some measure of affirmation. Hence, the source of all the vices humans then recognize as sin.

The choice that was made in the garden was a choice of death over life - a choice to heed contrary counsel other than the counsel of God. Even having been warned of the consequences of such a choice (and like every choice) it was a wilful, deliberate decision of man to disobey God and hence, rebel against His wisdom and discretion, in instructing the man He created how to use the freewill with which he had been gifted.

When the serpent asked, ‘has God indeed said...’, his purpose was to cast aspersions on the integrity and wisdom of God in leaving instructions for the conduct of the man, to discredit God before the man. Once again, the man had the choice to reject such suggestions and stick with his original set of instructions, trusting that God who created him, appointed him to the station in which he found himself as well as the provisions to prosper in the purpose for which he was created, had sound judgement in establishing such guidelines. So, being tempted to rebel is not the sin. Because we have freewill, we will always be confronted with options to explore what’s beyond the boundaries of God’s instructions. Deciding to rebel is the seal of the sin.

In distrusting God’s intentions, man also literally cast aspersions on his own existence and acquired an insecurity complex that stripped him of his confidence. It is obvious even in modern society how this cancer afflicts men.

My first question is not quite on the consequences of sin but on the possibility of a perfect being to sin. The sin committed by our first parents is what brought imperfection to the human race, right? Meaning before that sin, they were perfect, in God's apparent image and likeness. If they were then perfect and our propensity to fall to temptation is function of our imperfection, how did they then commit that first sin that made them imperfect in the first place? Same as with Lucifer. He was one of the heavenly host and also, by that extension, expected to be a perfect being. How then did this perfect being commit sin? Take this analogy, a perfectly round ball on a perfectly flat and smooth road. If you were to roll that ball on the road, there is absolutely no reason why it should bounce since both the surface of the ball and the road are perfectly uniform. If the ball does bounce at some point, then it means one of them is not perfect in nature, hence the bounce.

senbonzakurakageyoshi:


...Take this analogy, a perfectly round ball on a perfectly flat and smooth road. If you were to roll that ball on the road, there is absolutely no reason why it should bounce since both the surface of the ball and the road are perfectly uniform. If the ball does bounce at some point, then it means one of them is not perfect in nature, hence the bounce.

Your logic is good. But the major discrepancy is that while the road is smooth, the ball has a will to roll where it pleases, even though it has been set on a course. It can chose to follow the course or to veer from it. It can chose to bounce and can go to any length to achieve this, including inventing fictional ruts in the road to support its decision.

'Perfect' beings sinned, because they could! And so they chose to. They are not robots but cognitive individuals who could be reasoned with. Perfection in your context would apply to animals - both domestic and wild. The perfection of man's creation on the other hand, is the exact duplication of the essence of God in mortal flesh.

The only 'offense' God committed is also the one very significant factor that distinguishes man from all other creation - He gave him freewill!

...with all the attendant risks involved, such as an abuse of it. It's the same way the gift of salvation through Jesus is today also being discountenanced and abused.

Yet, God in all His Omniscience did not withhold His affection.

nuwell:


Your logic is good. But the major discrepancy is that while the road is smooth, the ball has a will to roll where it pleases, even though it has been set on a course. It can chose to follow the course or to veer from it. It can chose to bounce and can go to any length to achieve this, including inventing fictional ruts in the road to support its decision.

'Perfect' beings sinned, because they could! And so they chose to. They are not robots but cognitive individuals who could be reasoned with. Perfection in your context would apply to animals - both domestic and wild. The perfection of man's creation on the other hand, is the exact duplication of the essence of God in mortal flesh.

The only 'offense' God committed is also the one very significant factor that distinguishes man from all other creation - He gave him freewill!

...with all the attendant risks involved, such as an abuse of it. It's the same way the gift of salvation through Jesus is today also being discountenanced and abused.

Yet, God in all His Omniscience did not withhold His affection.

Therein lies the rub. Because we're still looking at a perfect being becoming imperfect when imperfection did not pre-exist it. In the case of Adam and Eve, we could make the excuse that since Lucifer /the devil had previously sinned, then there was a pre-existing case of imperfection that caused their eventual fall. However, before Lucifer's fall from grace, there was no such thing as imperfection. It just wasn't in existence (we're supposing). Going back to the analogy of the ball and the road, if there was no such thing as imperfection in existence, then, regardless of the direction the ball rolls and the distance, it will never bounce except the road all on it's own develops a bump or the ball all on it's own develops an unevenness on its surface both scenarios which, in a perfect setting (which, by the way, is what we were presented with), are impossible without an external force. So what external force could have made Lucifer fall if there was no evil pre-existing him?

Also, and this is a pretty bothersome one, why would God, having seen that one of his heavenly host was capable of imperfection, still leave his creation open to corruption?

Perfect' beings sinned, because they could! And so they chose to. They are not robots but cognitive individuals who could be reasoned with. Perfection in your context would apply to animals - both domestic and wild. The perfection of man's creation on the other hand, is the exact duplication of the essence of God in mortal flesh.

Sin is a function of imperfection (like in my analogy of a ball and a road, bouncing is a function of imperfection of either the road or the ball or external influences). If sin is a function of imperfection, then it would be impossible for a perfect being to sin, except it was not perfect to start with or it was somehow corrupted by an external factor which, as at the time of Lucifer's fall, was not in existence. So except we say Lucifer (and by extension, the rest of the heavenly host) and Adam and Eve as at creating were not perfect then it should have been impossible for them to sin. If their imperfection was then caused instead by some external factors or influence that we are not familiar with, then any of them truly be blamed for their fall from grace?

senbonzakurakageyoshi:
2)

3) Who really tempted Eve? In spite of the fact that we generally believe that it was the devil that tempted our first parents, the Bible never expressly said so. It only said the serpent was wily and cunning but it never said it was possessed by the devil. Even when they were being cursed, the serpent was never addressed as the devil and, if the serpent was possessed by the devil, then we truly can't blame it for its actions as it was just serving as a channel for something more powerful than it to operate, hence, there would have been no need to curse the serpent as well. So how come the serpent, if it wasn't possessed by the devil, could tempt Adam to sin? If we do say that the serpent was possessed by the devil or was the devil, how come God allowed the devil into his garden of perfection, knowing that it's distinctly possible that the devil would also tempt his creation to sin and also knowing what the consequences of the success of such a venture would be? If it wasn't the devil, then would it follow that serpent was "smarter" than both Adam and Eve, in knowing what was what and what God had placed in the garden. That would also mean the serpent had a higher level of cognition and thought than the first humans, which would make it closer to God in a particular likeness than they were.

In many respects I quite agree with you. I have long suspected that the serpent got a bad rap. The Christian NT concept of Satan or the Devil simply cannot be applied in the OT accounts. Just as in some ancient writings, the serpent is presented as a sign of healing or salvation, for instance the “Rod of Aesclepius” the serpent intertwined on a staff or Caduseus

Nowhere does the Book of Genesis state that the Serpent was Lucifer, actually it would be fair to say that the serpent, who by the way was definitely more than just a lowly snake, (probably figurative, he could converse with Eve), evidently preceded Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and according to other ancient Jewish writings he walked upright and maintained the place. The serpent knew the truth about the tree of Knowledge, it spoke like a man and had the stature to challenge Yahweh. We are told the land was rich in Gold, Bdellium and Onyx, his job it seems was to supply Gems to his superiors.

when the serpent is tempting Eve, he says:

"You are not going to die. No, the gods (Elohim) will know that the moment you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be the same as the gods (Elohim) in telling good from bad."

Clearly the serpent called it as he saw it..