First, it would be good to clarify one point. Regardless of when(?) we are talking about, before{?) or after(?) the fall of Satan and the 1/3 of the heavenly host, contingency is still a factor. The angelic host and the material from which they were made, are as contingent as we and our fallen material are. It would seem, however, that free will was as present, in a pre-fall universe, as it is, here, but it also seems that the majority (2/3) of the population of heaven was able to make good decisions. I must scratch my head somewhat, concerning this. Unfallen contingency has better material to work with. Wow! Recently, I had a conversation with someone about the 'big bang.' As I have heard, before, his postulate was that the big bang was the moment of creation. Having heard some of the postulated original state of the singularity that exploded, in that big bang, and the description of the disordered state of the original material which came out of it, it has always seemed to me that the big bang was the moment of the fall, not the moment of creation, for all of the material described by most nuclear physicists, was in a disordered state, immediately after the big bang, not ordered, in a heat death that was at millions of degrees. Why do I mention this? Primarily because the state of the universe, just after the 'big bang' seems to be indicative of the tohuw and bohuw, the formlessness and chaos, and in particular, the ruin of the simple order of the singularity that existed, until the 'big bang' or the fall, which ever way you want to see it.
I really dislike the notion that God "did His best" to restore the universe. I think it indicates that some things are beyond God's ability. Understand I am not arguing for the omni-competence of God but rather that those things which God purposes to do He does so in total and without anything lacking. I think Genesis also supports this idea because God declares Creation "Very Good". If Creation were a patchwork of something which had been better before then I have a hard time grasping how it could be "Very good" in the eyes of the Almighty. Also I think the idea of the universe being constructed of "naturally corrupted elements" is not a Christian-Jewish idea at all. The Bible unashamedly declares that everything God did in creation is good and not lacking in anything at all. Why would God curse creation because of man's sin if it were already cursed. Rather such a notion is Platonic in its nature. The idea that the universe is basically evil is to say that all physical matter is evil and therefore you fall into the Neo-Platonist heresy of "Spirit good/ physical bad" not so not at all. God created man good period and declared him to be so. Also the idea that the universe was cobbled together with wicked elements is a gnostic heresy which has nothing whatever to do with Christian orthodoxy.
That the big bang has coalesced into order, galaxies and stars and planets, black holes and quasars, stellar systems, asteroids, etc., is evidence that the glorious simplicity of singularity, fallen from perfect order, is having to be re-ordered, but NOW is being ordered in a new complexity, showing God's way of bringing chaos into order, and greater complexity of order than singularity could manifest. “Glory to glory,” as it has been said, in scripture. Naturally, seeing as chaos and entropy have been conquered and made, against their nature, into glorious order, would have to be said to be “Very Good.”
It is my ascertation, that at the same time, we must recognize that nature is still subject to what is usually called Newton's third law of thermodynamics, an internal tendency to disorder, the heat-death of entropy, It would seem to me that entropy is the proof of my admittedly poorly worded description of the patchwork universe. I see God as having used the fallen matter, left-over from the big bang, to build an even more glorious and magnificent universe, but one that is still built of a material that is less than desirable, a material that will eventually be dispensed with, after which the New Heavens and the New Earth will be created, for God's greater glory, and for us. That Plato was the origin of the idea that matter is inherently corrupt, and evil, is not necessarily true, nor even is it necessarily a completely accurate perception, from Plato's point of view. However, that the universe is inherently entropic, cannot be denied. (It, however, is true that in the New Testament, [Gal. 4:8,9], scripture speaks of us, that we were subject to those “who were not gods,” and that we should not return to being subject to the “weak and beggarly elements.” What is meant here, should be carefully analyzed. Does it mean elemental spirits or not?)
But, what I am saying here, is that the text and the words used, especially in the Hebrew, indicate what science actually describes, (though the time frame is obviously in debate), when it describes the big bang. Look into the scientific material, and you will find what I relate, above.
Also, the idea of tohuw and bohuw being repititions, do not sound valid to me. Yes, I agree that “alas, alas,” “fallen, fallen,” “truly, truly,” Abraham, Abraham,” are all emphasis constructions, not only present in ancient Hebrew, but still present in modern language. Tohuw & bohuw, however, are absolutely different words, containing connotations and denotations that are definitely meant to express different aspects of the disorder present in the universe. God is not a God of confusion, OR of disorder, so the source of the disorder has to be accounted for. We must look elsewhere in scripture. “It is the glory of God to conceal things. It is the glory of kings to search things out.”
Regardless of the quality of the material used to rebuild the universe, the fact is, that the contingent nature of the universe was always there. The free-will choice of Lucifer and his 1/3 of the heavenly host, as contingent beings, was misused to choose to make a choice undirected by the will of God, from within, (now), Satan's own internal will. Mankind's temptation was, though his own fault, from outside his will. He was tempted from an outside source. That made him redeemable, BUT, true moral guilt, (as mentioned before), required a repair job on his will, which though his body is still made of fallen matter, causing the occasional poor decision, allows better decision-making capability. This has some bearing on some of the doctrines of the church, dealing with ongoing need for repentance and admission of sin, since we are still NATURALLY prone to sin.
This argument cannot be made in defense of Christian orthodoxy. Of course Lucifer was a contingent being, but apart from the ability to sin he also had the ability to not sin (which is an ability which we post-fall lack.) The same is true of Adam. There is a sense in which we can never grasp what temptation meant to Adam, but we can be certain that it must have come from within and the reason why is simple. If Adam fell because he was tempted outside of himself then how did Lucifer fall? As the angel who rebelled, Lucifer must have been tempted from within since the only other being who could tempt him was God. So if the only way Adam could fall was because he was tempted form outside of himself then the only way which Lucifer could have fallen was the same. Unless of course Adam was not morally perfect in which case the fall is not a fall at all. However Ezekiel tells us that Lucifer fell because of the lust in his own heart which welled up from within himself. And James tells us that we sin because temptation wells up from within ourselves. Remember that Scripture holds Adam responsible for the fall, but he did not sin first. Eve sinned first but was deceived Adam chose to sin in full knowledge of what he was doing.
And you can't say that it was because he had a natural proclivity to sin because he was in a fallen body. He was not and Scripture tells us so quite plainly. God gave Law to our parents and they transgressed it. They did so because they wanted to and yes God had to allow it to happen. One could argue that the fall was inevitable since it happened, but it need not be so. That Adam was made good and given free will and Law indicates that he could have done differently. If he could not but fall the God's cursing of him is unjust. If God fashions Adam from fallen matter and gives him Law knowing He can't obey and then holds him responsible for his sin then God is unjust. And you can't argue that we have a sin proclivity and God holds us responsible so... because we are not Adam and neither are we as Adam was. We have a sin nature, he did not. We live in a fallen world, he was in the Garden of God. Our situation is nothing like Adam's and yet when we sin we do so because we choose to and God holds us responsible for it. So for Adam to have sinned given the beatific existence which he enjoyed which we have never known is all the more shocking. God not only made him good, He stacked the deck in his favor. And Adam still fell.
I cannot see the argument in Bogey's last exchange. I know his writing is usually lucid, so assume that some brain gas was released.
My point is that scripture says, Lucifer was created “perfect in all his ways, until iniquity was found in him.” This indicates that Satan, (his new name, meaning adversary or enemy, after his fall), fell due to his own self-contained pride. Other scriptures indicate this. Adam was tempted and fell due to the temptation which came from Satan, outside Adam. Was Adam still truly morally guilty? YES ! As the Federal head of the entire human race, he fell, and all mankind fell through him. However, he did not tempt himself, as did Lucifer/Satan. It came from outside him.
I believe that both Adam and Eve were kept innocent, until their fall, of the nature of their own bodies. Scripture says that their “eyes were opened” as a result of eating of “the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil,” which means that in SOME way, their eyes were previously covered, or blinded to SOMETHING. It looks like, to me, that their eyes were closed, or they were kept unaware, of the nature of their own bodies, for it is said that they were already naked, but not ashamed. Why did they suddenly feel ashamed about something that was already a fact in existence? (It has been postulated that their disobedience was what made them ashamed, and this is a valid point, however, that previously existing nakedness was the only physical manifestation of the issue, mentioned.) Interestingly, the word that is used, for naked, (transliterated 'awram'), while it's denotation is simply “naked” or “nude,” it has other connotations, which are “cunning, (usually in a bad sense), smooth, be prudent, deal subtly, take crafty [counsel].” Is there something here, being expressed, in this particular form, of a natural tendency which has been exposed?, which could not have been allowed to be made known? (Seeing as I, personally, do not hold to the doctrine that sees sex as the cause of original sin, as did the Shakers, I must postulate that there was something inherently present, more fundamental than just sex.) Later, it is said that the serpent, (in which form Satan came), was the most subtle of all creatures. Hmm. Regardless, there was something that was hidden from them, for a reason that God felt necessary, that Satan wanted them to be aware of, and NOT for their own good, for immediately upon becoming aware, they were ashamed. Seeing as that knowledge CAME from the “tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good AND evil,” it seems reasonable that an awareness of their own nature was the point of the knowledge gained from the fruit, that fruit which Satan wished them to partake of, and caused their own fall.
This possibility would fit in well with the chaotic, anarchistic, nature of an entropic body. It seems to me, that if Adam and Eve had known about the way their bodies were fashioned from the chaotic matter of an exploded singularity, inherently entropic, they would no longer have been innocent of their built-in tendency to physical corruption, which became exactly the case. Their innocence gave them the state that was needed to be able to have a clean conscience & at least innocent free will, but they still fell into the contingent inevitability of the fall, from a temptation from Satan, outside themselves. (That, at a later date, Moses encountered God in a bush which burned, but was not consumed, [unlike entropic matter], may be a literal expression of where, in eternity, we are headed, only if in Christ.) In the meantime, we absolutely ARE made of matter which is subject to the third law of thermodynamics, or entropy. My thoughts are, that Adam and Eve's blindness/innocence was God's way of dealing with the issue, when giving them their free will choice.
One last mention, concerning contingency and the inevitability of the fall. The contingency of creation made the fall inevitable. Only God is non-contingent. The contingency of creations given free will make their fall inevitable. Tying this to the previous paragraph is that mankind was created in an innocent state, blinded to his nature.
Concerning Bogey's dislike of the phraseology I used about God doing His best to deal with fallen matter, I must, once again, apologize for using poor phrasing. My point was, actually, that God decided to use fallen matter, left over from the fall, to remake a shattered universe, even though He does not intend to leave things that way, (as His intended destruction of this heavens and earth, before He remakes a new heavens and earth, would indicate, otherwise, he wouldn't be destroying it). That the earth was cursed by the fall of man does not negate that matter was cursed by the fall of Satan....(hmm. I am not sure whether Adam's fall or Lucifer's fall subsumed the other. Entropy is entropy.) Look at it, not only in the earth, but in thermodynamic law, everywhere in the universe. I see a breathtakingly beautiful indication of agreement between astrophysics, physics, and, in particular, thermodynamics, and, on the other hand, scripture. However, in the end, entropy will be no more, as sin and death will be no more.
(More later.)
