Why? Both Satan and Adam were created morally perfect by God, and yet they also both had the ability to sin. How do you explain that?
Once again, equivocating the word "perfect".
Again, why WOULDN'T I? It seems that you are unable to answer this very basic questions, a question to which the answer destroys your entire argument.
Three things that jumped out at me immediately. First, you are assuming that just because the bible call them blameless that they were "blameless" their whole lives.
Of course I am. Because the bible very plainly states that they observed "all the Lords commands and decrees blamelessly". It doesn't say SOME, or MOST, it says ALL! Therefore, there is no biblical basis for assuming that they were in fact sinners, who occasionally or previously did not observe all the Lord's commands and decrees. Beyond that, even according to your own logic, IF they were once sinners and God later considered them "blameless", why would they still have to die if they were no longer to blame?
You don't know what kind of lives they lived before Zachariars' priesthood.
The logical assumption is that they lived "blameless" lives throughout their lives (unless there is something that directly contradicts that). Psalm 18 certainly implies that it is indeed possible to live "blameless lives".
Psalm 18:22-24
22
All his laws are before me;
I have not turned away from his decrees.
23
I have been blameless before him
and have kept myself from sin.
24 The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness,
according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.
Second, if you are willing to grant that they were morally perfect, then you are saying that either one of their deaths would have been sufficient enough for the sins of mankind, if that is the case. Are you prepared to say that?
That is a non-sequitur! They WERE morally perfect UNTIL they sinned! At that point, they were no longer morally perfect, and therefore would not have been able to atone for our deaths.
Third, to say that any created being is morally perfect is to say that that person's moral character is on the same level as God,
No, that's YOUR definition of what it means to be morally perfect. My definition of morally perfect as it pertains to any of God's creations is "free from sin". And that is how the bible describes Lucifer before the fall. It says that he had the seal of perfection before wickedness was found in him. God does not create any being that is imperfect. They become imperfect when they sin against!
since he is morally perfect...and are you prepared to say that as well.
You're creating a false dichotomy! God is also a living spirit, just as we are a living spirit. But that doesn't necessarily mean that we are on his level! It just means that we have a quality in common with God, not that we are on the same level as he is.
Being born in to sin is irrelevant if you believe that people can live morally perfect lives. If Zecharias and Mary were morally perfect as you seem to think, then it doesn't matter a darn whether or not they were born into sin, would does it?
It would! Because they are still genetically imperfect (being offspring of Adam and Eve). Adam and Eve were sinners, so anyone born from them is affected by their sins. That's why Paul says that death came to all, "even those who did not sin". They are still considered sinners because of original sin. Which goes back to my question: Do you believe in the concept of original sin, and that our deaths are required to atone for original sin?
Same answer as above. If it is possible for people to live morally perfect lives, then how they are born is irrelevant.
But that's not what the bible says. The bible says that sin spread to the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin. It says that life is granted through the sacrifice of another man (Christ). The difference between Adam and Christ was that Adam sinned and Christ did not. We were all born from the line of Adam, therefore we must all die! We will all die whether we commit any sins or not because we are all came from Adam. Even the men who God deemed as blameless (even if they had BECOME that way and didn't originally start out that way originally), they still died! Why would God call them "blameless" and then still require them to die for their own sins? That doesn't make any sense! The logical conclusion is that even the "blameless" people are still genetically tainted through the sins of their ancestor (Adam), and consequently must still die.
Maybe he didn't know? Why assume he knew?
How could he not know? You claim to "know" that Christ was incapable of sinning. So why would you know something that Satan (someone who was actually in the presence of Christ) didn't know? Satan knew the scriptures because he quoted them, and he obviously knew who Christ was (otherwise why would he single him out to be tempted)? But what I'm asking is, why would this story even be recorded at all if the assumption was that Christ could NOT be tempted? It becomes a waste of time!
Umm, Bryce, the fact that they eventually sinned goes to show you how morally perfect they were. No imperfection can come from perfection.
That was a very clever way of dodging the question. So I'll repeat it until you can actually provide an answer.
Where do you derive the notion that God intentionally created man to be "morally imperfect"? If God is "good", then why would God do this? If your answer is that he wouldn't do this, then your argument is self defeating! Man WAS morally perfect because God created him to be morally perfect. The only alternative is that God created man morally IMPERFECT. So which one is it according to you?
How can you be considered "morally perfect" if there is a chance that you can commit a immoral act? Makese no sense.
A) Because people are not judged by what they CAN do, they are judged by what they actually DO. [Revelation 20:13].
B) Because assuming that any being capable of sinning is automatically morally perfect is saying that God intentionally created beings to me morally imperfect. Do you believe God did this?
Right!!! Can you call a car a "perfectly running car" (without using a figure of speech) if the car has the ability to not run properly?
YES. And that's exactly what we call them! We only call it imperfect when a defect is noted. :sarcastic
I used the basketball/free throw shooter example, one that describes how you continually equivocate the word "perfect", and one that I would like a direct response to.
I gave you a direct response. Your analogy is a failure because it belies the central question at hand: DID GOD CREATE MORALLY IMPERFECT BEINGS? The answer is either yes or no! And if you cannot answer this question, then I'll consider that a concession! In order for your basketball analogy to have any validity, you have to first acknowledge that God intentionally created morally imperfect beings. :yes:
What is your answer?
I've already answered this.
No you haven't. Your answer was another question: "Maybe he didn't know? Why assume he knew?". A question to which I have provided a response. Therefore, I'd like you to now answer my response.
So he was blameless in his ways, but found wickedness? That doesn't sound like moral perfection to me.
It doesn't matter what is sounds like TO YOU, it only matters what the scripture actually says! And in this case, the scriptures clearly say that the devil was the "seal of perfection" when God created him! So unless you are calling this a lie, I don't see how you can argue against it. This is clear biblical evidence that scripture defines "perfection" as one who has not committed any sins, not as one who is incapable of sin (which is your definition). You keep accusing me of "equivocating the word perfect", but where is your evidence of this? You cannot justify this argument as anything more than semantics. Perfection means perfection! If you can provide a scripture that proves it is implied in a different context here, by all means do so. Otherwise, you have no case and are just making an argument of semantics.
Well, explain what does being "tainted" by sin means. If you are morally perfect, then tainted by sin is irrelevant. Tained by sin, but still perfect? Makes no sense.
The only "morally perfect" beings that God created were Adam, Eve, Jesus and all the angels (including Satan). Everyone else born from man is morally imperfect (because they came from Adam after he sinned). Being tainted by sin means that we were born from Adam (who sinned). The bible is clear that we inherited his imperfection (death spread to the world through one man) and because of that, we must all die. That has nothing to do with whether or not we choose to sin or not. You can commit no sins throughout your entire lifetime and be considered "blameless" by God, but you will still be imperfect because you were born from the line of Adam (a sinner). Thus you will still die! Thus, we can never be morally perfect until we die, and are resurrected to life by Christ. That is what his death on the cross accomplishes! It atones for all sin (including original sin).
Only Jesus is morally perfect, because he was not born of Adam but through divine will (free from sin); not because he is God! Adam was also morally perfect because he was created directly by God, free of sin (just as Satan was). Yet, they both still chose to sin and thus became imperfect. This proves that perfect beings are capable of sin, and that they can become imperfect through sin!
