If Satan tempts us, God allows it and is thus partially responsible

[chaunceygardner]

Where is Satan ever described as a god?

Satan is not, that is partly my point. But Humans have “promoted” him to that role.

And if, as you state in another post, Satan was originally good and by exercising his free will became evil, that brings up a question: If there was no other Satan before this Satan, who or what tempted him into turning evil? Which begs another question: Would evil exist if Satan did not exist? And if it does, how do we know which evil is a result of our own weakness and free will and which is a result of Satan putting temptations before us?

This is getting quite complex.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*chaunceygardner

It comes from understanding that most of Genesis (if not all of it) is a metaphorical explanation of man’s relationship with God, and of how the Hebrews became the Chosen People. It is filled with symbolism and other forms of figurative language. Just as much of the teaching of Jesus was done through parables.*

Were Adam and Eve also symbols or metaphors? For what? Is original sin also a metaphor? For what?

When Jesus spoke in parables, it was clear that he was speaking in parables. When he was using metaphors, it was clear that he was using metaphors. You can’t arbitrarily, on your own authority, decide which of his words were metaphors and which were literal.

When we are given accounts of Jesus’ confronting demons in the NT, you don’t on your own get to decide that these demons were not really demons.

Unless you are a Protestant, which apparently you are. Liberal Protestantism has done away with a good deal of early Christian teachings, including the Eucharist, Exorcisms, even Sin and the requirement that we confess our sins … mostly on the grounds that everything in the New Testament is metaphorical and we are free to take it all any way we like.

Is it also metaphorical that Christ lived and died for our sins?

 

[hellopeople]

*chaunceygardner

It comes from understanding that most of Genesis (if not all of it) is a metaphorical explanation of man’s relationship with God, and of how the Hebrews became the Chosen People. It is filled with symbolism and other forms of figurative language. Just as much of the teaching of Jesus was done through parables.*

Were Adam and Eve also symbols or metaphors? For what? Is original sin also a metaphor? For what?

When Jesus spoke in parables, it was clear that he was speaking in parables. When he was using metaphors, it was clear that he was using metaphors. You can’t arbitrarily, on your own authority, decide which of his words were metaphors and which were literal.

When we are given accounts of Jesus’ confronting demons in the NT, you don’t on your own get to decide that these demons were not really demons.

Unless you are a Protestant, which apparently you are. Liberal Protestantism has done away with a good deal of early Christian teachings, including the Eucharist, Exorcisms, even Sin and the requirement that we confess our sins … mostly on the grounds that everything in the New Testament is metaphorical and we are free to take it all any way we like.

Is it also metaphorical that Christ lived and died for our sins?

Can you point me to the passage where it says you must confess your sins to a priest? Because this wasn’t Paul’s thinking.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hellopeople

*Can you point me to the passage where it says you must confess your sins to a priest? Because this wasn’t Paul’s thinking. *

Perhaps we should go straight to the thinking of Jesus?

John 20:23 - Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.

Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to “men.” Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles’ successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?

Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the “Son of man” has authority to forgive sins on earth.

Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus’ authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors.

There isn’t anything the least bit metaphorical about John 20:23.

 

[hellopeople]

Sins are forgiven by believing in Jesus according to Paul.

Romans 3:21-26 (New International Version)

Righteousness Through Faith
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[a] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Also, the passage from John you quoted says nothing of priests or it being some sort of sacrament.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Also, the passage from John you quoted says nothing of priests or it being some sort of sacrament.

No it doesn’t, if one only reads the single line out of context. However He does say “you”. Who is “you”?

From the RSVCE, John 20:19 and following:

19* On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21* Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22* And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23* If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

In doing so, Jesus gave the disciples the authority.

Nothing new here, it was revealed about 2000 years ago.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*hellopeople

Also, the passage from John you quoted says nothing of priests or it being some sort of sacrament.*

“Priest” is a word for one who offers sacrifice. Jesus offered the sacrifice of Himself, and therefore is the High Priest of the New Testament. When He sends out the disciples as the Father sent Him out, they must therefore share in his priesthood. And they do so, most importantly by offering the sacrifice of the Mass (Eucharistic bod and Blood) as Jesus offered himself … both at the Last Supper and on the Cross.

The passage by Paul you quoted says nothing about forgiveness comparable to the one I cited by John. Jesus is endowing the disciples (and obviously their successors) with the power to forgive or retain sins. With your “free” Protestant vision to explain things as you like, how do you explain that passage?

How can the disciples forgive or retain if sins are not first confessed? How would they know which sins they were forgiving or which sins to retain?

You are engaging in selective Scripture hunting for passages that support your view. But you seem to be baffled by any passage that does not support your view, such as the one cited in the Gospel of John.

By the way, when you take a position, do you often oppose the views expressly stated by Jesus and replace them with ambiguous statements to the contrary by Paul?

There is nothing in your quote from Paul that negates the gift of Jesus to the apostles and their successors … the gift of addressing human sinfulness among the faithful (yes, we call it the sacrament of forgiveness, or reconciliation, which is achieved first by confession).

If I am not mistaken, all Protestant have at least one sacrament … baptism. Some Protestants, those who did not stray too far from the early Church, have other sacraments.

But this is to go astray from the topic of this thread, which is whether God is co-responsible with Satan for all the evil in the world.

 

[hellopeople]

*hellopeople

Also, the passage from John you quoted says nothing of priests or it being some sort of sacrament.*

“Priest” is a word for one who offers sacrifice. Jesus offered the sacrifice of Himself, and therefore is the High Priest of the New Testament. When He sends out the disciples as the Father sent Him out, they must therefore share in his priesthood. And they do so, most importantly by offering the sacrifice of the Mass (Eucharistic bod and Blood) as Jesus offered himself … both at the Last Supper and on the Cross.

The passage by Paul you quoted says nothing about forgiveness comparable to the one I cited by John. Jesus is endowing the disciples (and obviously their successors) with the power to forgive or retain sins. With your “free” Protestant vision to explain things as you like, how do you explain that passage?

How can the disciples forgive or retain if sins are not first confessed? How would they know which sins they were forgiving or which sins to retain?

You are engaging in selective Scripture hunting for passages that support your view. But you seem to be baffled by any passage that does not support your view, such as the one cited in the Gospel of John.

By the way, when you take a position, do you often oppose the views expressly stated by Jesus and replace them with ambiguous statements to the contrary by Paul?

There is nothing in your quote from Paul that negates the gift of Jesus to the apostles and their successors … the gift of addressing human sinfulness among the faithful (yes, we call it the sacrament of forgiveness, or reconciliation, which is achieved first by confession).

If I am not mistaken, all Protestant have at least one sacrament … baptism. Some Protestants, those who did not stray too far from the early Church, have other sacraments.

But this is to go astray from the topic of this thread, which is whether God is co-responsible with Satan for all the evil in the world.

I am not a protestant and I completely disagree that faith alone is responsible for salvation. And I also don’t believe that faith is needed for salvation at all.

Anyway, your passage from John has little to nothing to do with penance. First of all, he said that to his disciples could forgive sins. He says nothing of passing that onto other people (and even if he did, how are all modern priests successors of the disciples).

 

[doanli]

Free

Will

Exactly. And 100% personal responsibility.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

First of all, he said that to his disciples could forgive sins. He says nothing of passing that onto other people (and even if he did, how are all modern priests successors of the disciples).

Apostolic Succession. Catechism of The Catholic Church. Unbroken line to St. Peter and the other apostles and Christ.

Read here: vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

 

[chaunceygardner]

chaunceygardner:

It comes from understanding that most of Genesis (if not all of it) is a metaphorical explanation of man’s relationship with God, and of how the Hebrews became the Chosen People. It is filled with symbolism and other forms of figurative language. Just as much of the teaching of Jesus was done through parables.

Were Adam and Eve also symbols or metaphors? For what? Is original sin also a metaphor? For what?

Possibly for us and for our human nature. Adam and Eve were not actual people; how would anyone, even at the time this story was created, have known that? The story is similar to the stories of many peoples and cultures in trying to understand how the world was created and our relationship to God (or gods, in the case of some cultures). The whole point was not a factual history lesson, but a teaching about how God and people relate to each other, an introduction to how the Hebrews became the Chosen People.

When Jesus spoke in parables, it was clear that he was speaking in parables. When he was using metaphors, it was clear that he was using metaphors. You can’t arbitrarily, on your own authority, decide which of his words were metaphors and which were literal.

When we are given accounts of Jesus’ confronting demons in the NT, you don’t on your own get to decide that these demons were not really demons.

Unless you are a Protestant, which apparently you are. Liberal Protestantism has done away with a good deal of early Christian teachings, including the Eucharist, Exorcisms, even Sin and the requirement that we confess our sins … mostly on the grounds that everything in the New Testament is metaphorical and we are free to take it all any way we like.

Is it also metaphorical that Christ lived and died for our sins?

I did not say in my posts that what Jesus said or taught was metaphor, but that he taught with parables and used symbolic language. You are making a large leap to come up with your assumptions from what I said.

As to the demons that Jesus removed, I have no idea what they were, and it really doesn’t matter whether they were satanic, physical or mental in nature. What DOES matter is that Jesus was demonstrating that He had the authority from God to remove them, and that people could be saved by their faith in God’s Word.

Another assumption you make is that I am a Liberal Protestant, and make it sound like a very bad thing. Not a very Christian attitude, I would think. I will leave to others more knowledgeable than I to address the accusations you make, but believe that Protestants were not making everything in the NT metaphorical; rather, they were trying to sort out what WAS actually in the Bible from traditions and doctrine adopted by the Church.

In any case, to get back to the original question, we are totally and solely to blame for all the evil we think, do and say. Of course, our culture and society certainly provide a big assist in that regard.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*chaunceygardner

Another assumption you make is that I am a Liberal Protestant, and make it sound like a very bad thing.*

Liberal Protestantism has done many of the things I said it has done. How “very bad” that is I did not say, so you are reading things into my remarks. Do you expect me to agree with liberal Anglicans, for example, that priests living openly in sin with other men, or women with other women, should be ordained as bishops, as if that was O.K. with Saint Paul and Christ?

I don’t think you do. And I wonder if you really want to get on your high horse to say that I shouldn’t call that a very bad thing, just as I would call it a very bad thing when Catholic bishops aid and abet pedophile priests by moving them from parish to parish.

Let’s call things as we see them. Sporting a thousand creeds, Protestantism is a theological mess. It’s exactly the same thing both Jesus and Paul preached against when they called for the unity of doctrine and spirit.

If Christianity goes into radical decline in this century, as it has in the past two centuries, I will attribute that to the fact that Christianity has been divided and conquered not from without, but from within.

 

[davidv]

Satan is not, that is partly my point. But Humans have “promoted” him to that role.

And if, as you state in another post, Satan was originally good and by exercising his free will became evil, that brings up a question: If there was no other Satan before this Satan, who or what tempted him into turning evil?

There is pious speculation that Satan’s temptation was the view that God gave him with regard to becoming Man.

Which begs another question: Would evil exist if Satan did not exist?

Possibly. At some point would circumstances lead man to distrust God and go his own way in defiance to God’s command?

And if it does, how do we know which evil is a result of our own weakness and free will and which is a result of Satan putting temptations before us?

Temptations, in and of themselve, are not evil. Only the choice to not do good is evil.

This is getting quite complex.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

I’ll stick with this I posted earlier:

The Liar (Satan) doesn’t have to “prove” that there is no God, all it has to “prove” is that there is no Liar.

Thus how the fall begins.

 

[Trishie]

**God does not send temptation

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.

James 1:15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

“The temptations in your life are no different from what others experience. And God is faithful. He will not allow the temptation to be more than you can stand. When you are tempted, he will show you a way out so that you can endure.” 1 Corinthians 10:13

When He arrived at the place, He said to them, “Pray that you may not enter into temptation.” Luke 22:40

Because you have kept the word of my patience, I also will keep you from the hour of temptation, which shall come on all the world, to try them that dwell on the earth.
Revelation 3:10

Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Galatians 6:1**

 

[Trishie]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
VI. “AND LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION”

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/pater2.html#LEAD

2846 This petition goes to the root of the preceding one, for our sins result from our consenting to temptation; we therefore ask our Father not to “lead” us into temptation. It is difficult to translate the Greek verb used by a single English word: the Greek means both “do not allow us to enter into temptation” and “do not let us yield to temptation. God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one”; on the contrary, he wants to set us free from evil. We ask him not to allow us to take the way that leads to sin. We are engaged in the battle “between flesh and spirit”; this petition implores the Spirit of discernment and strength.

2847 The Holy Spirit makes us discern between trials, which are necessary for the growth of the inner man, and temptation, which leads to sin and death.We must also discern between being tempted and consenting to temptation. Finally, discernment unmasks the lie of temptation, whose object appears to be good, a “delight to the eyes” and desirable, when in reality its fruit is death.
God does not want to impose the good, but wants free beings… No one but God knows what our soul has received from him, not even we ourselves. But temptation reveals it in order to teach us to know ourselves, and in this way we discover our evil inclinations and are obliged to give thanks for the goods that temptation has revealed to us.

2848 “Lead us not into temptation” implies a decision of the heart: “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also…No one can serve two masters.” “If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.” In this assent to the Holy Spirit the Father gives us strength. “No testing has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, so that you may be able to endure it.”

2849 Such a battle and such a victory become possible only through prayer. It is by his prayer that Jesus vanquishes the tempter, both at the outset of his public mission and in the ultimate struggle of his agony. In this petition to our heavenly Father, Christ unites us to his battle and his agony. He urges us to vigilance of the heart in communion with his own. Vigilance is “custody of the heart,” and Jesus prayed for us to the Father: "Keep them in your name."The Holy Spirit constantly seeks to awaken us to keep watch. Finally, this petition takes on all its dramatic meaning in relation to the last temptation of our earthly battle; it asks for final perseverance. “Lo, I am coming like a thief! Blessed is he who is awake.”

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Sins are forgiven by believing in Jesus according to Paul.

Romans 3:21-26 (New International Version)

Righteousness Through Faith
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[a] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Also, the passage from John you quoted says nothing of priests or it being some sort of sacrament.

Y’know, many people who have been on these forums for long enough have seen this sort of thing before. It was just as misguided then as it is now.

 

[o_mlly]

Here is my logic:

God is far more powerful than Satan.

Satan can tempt us.

God has the power to stop Satan from tempting us.

There is no way for Satan to tempt us behind God’s back, because God is all knowing.

So, if Satan exists, and he tempts us, God is letting it happen. God knows that Satan is tempting us and says “OK Satan, you can do that.” In my opinion, it is pretty much the same thing as God tempting us Himself, because he could stop it, but chooses not to do so.

Can anyone refute this logic?

I’m OK with your logic to the point of claiming, “it is pretty much the same thing as God tempting us …” Either a thing is the same as another or it is not.

God acts in eternity and cannot contradict Himself. Having created Satan with a free will, He would contradict Himself were He to take Satan’s free will from him.

 

[jrgiancola]

God has given satan the ability to tempt us. But God will not allow him to tempt us beyond our power to endure. Why does God do this? Many reasons. One is to make us stronger in our faith. But I think the main reason is that the whole universe must see and realize that satan was wrong and God was right to banish him to hell. I believe there are many worlds out there, and the inhabitants did not fall as humanity did. These beings have constant, direct contact with God just as Adam and Eve did. satan must be allowed enough time to show the entire universe that he is evil and that God is ultimately good. Actually, I believe these other beings already know this; but God has allotted a time for satan to prove his evil to the universe. God is love; but He is also just. When Jesus comes and satan is finally cast into the lake of fire forever, never to tempt us again, there must be no doubt in anyone’s mind that God acted unjustly.

 

[jrgiancola]

Also, assuming only for the sake of argument that God is partially and indirectly responsible, not that I blame Him in any way for satan’s actions, then Jesus, who is God, paid the most horrible price for this. God suffered for the sins of humanity; what other religion has ever been based upon such a concept: that the deity willingly suffers for the sins of the people?