Free will vs omnipotence, and the consequences

[kenan]

Here's a mammoth of a post made by a militant atheist fellow on a forum that I frequent:

"Imagine God before creation and don't give me any bull**** about how there was no time or you can't imagine god or any of that apologetic bull**** because we both know damn ****ing well that you can conceive of god before creation.

Scenario A.
Imagine God before creation. This God is not omniscient. It can create the universe in any way it chooses, there are presumably unlimited options. If it creates the universe in a certain way, the creatures will behave in a certain way, but the god might not necessarily know how they will behave. No conflict here.

Scenario B
Imagine God before creation. This God is not omniscient. It can create the universe in any way it choses, and so on. Unlike God A, God B cares very much about how its creatures should behave, but like God A, God B does not necessarily know how they will behave. If the creatures behave in a way that upsets God B, God B will punish them. Does this seem fair to the creatures? No. Does God B seem like a responsible, admirable being? Absolutely not. Is this scenario self-contradictory? Not at all.

Scenario C
Imagine God before creation. This God is omniscient. Like Gods A and B, God C can create the universe in any way it chooses, but God C is unique in that not only does it have unlimited options, but because it has the property of being omniscient, it knows BEFORE TAKING ANY ACTION what EVERY result of whatever it does will be. This God will then know how every individual creature that comes about as a result of its creation will interact with the world in which it was created. Imagine that God C does not really care how its creatures act, and is merely an observer. Imagine a squirrel in God C's universe that drops an acorn off a tree, which falls and crushes a moth. Flash back to before creation. God C KNEW that if it chose that particular creation out of the limitless options, that moth would be crushed. How can one say that it was not God C's fault? What arguments could be made to alleviate God C of the blame? If one suggests that it is not the fault of God C, one could not possibly argue that it was the fault of the squirrel, for if God is not responsible for the actions of the squirrel that it created, why would the squirrel be responsible for the actions of the acorn?

Ah, but what if the squirrel purposefully dropped the acorn, knowing it would crush the moth? It would seem reasonable to place the blame on the squirrel, then.

But why not on God C? God C dropped the acorn when it created the universe, and God C dropped it with the intent to kill the moth because God C knew in advance that it would land on the moth.

The same applies to any other sin or any other action that any human being takes. If I hit someone with my car, God C hit someone with my car because God C created me, created the car, and knew that someone would be hit. Every time an acorn drops, God C dropped it - for better or for worse.

But of course the theist will then claim that the squirrel had a choice, it could have held on to the acorn. This is simply an illusion. Regardless of whether the squirrel or anyone else is aware, the future events have already been set in stone by God C when it foresaw creation before creating it and created it the way it did. I might think I have the choice of taking the elevator or the stairs, and I can sit and ponder my options for days, but no matter how much deliberation I exercise, the ultimate choice that I would make was known before God C created anything at all. Before I even had a mind with which to deliberate, the choice was known, and the choice was made, but not by me.

Is God C cruel? Is God C benevolent? Maybe, it's hard to say. One thing that is certain, however, is that the creatures created by God C could not possibly perform any action that God C was not directly responsible for. Is this self-contradictory? No. Is God C a responsible, caring creator? Maybe.

Scenario D
Imagine a God exactly similar to God C. The only difference is that God D will punish horrifically any creature acts in a way unsatisfactory to God D. Could there be more cruel a being? Could there be more evil a villain than such a God? No, there certainly could not be.

Can free will exist when the Creator chose what actions would be taken by every creature? Can there be spontaneity when the movements of every atom where known before atoms existed? Certainly not, and to think so is absurd. There are three possibilities:

Non-omniscient creator: not directly responsible for actions of its creations. Free will can exist, but the creator will always be indirectly responsible.

Omniscient creator: directly responsible for actions of its creations. Free will cannot exist.

Omniscient being, not the creator of all: not responsible for the actions of any creatures, free will can exist, but this being is not the creator of the universe.

Of the three options, the Christian God best suits the 2nd. However, the Christian God is like God D, and though it is directly responsible for its creature's actions, it punishes them for acting in certain ways. Not only is free will impossible, but this God is a sadistic, evil tyrant more treacherous than any villain ever imagined by the human mind."

Any sort of rebuttal that anyone can provide in response to this? I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around it.

 

[mondar]

Kenan,
First, I should mention that I write from the perspective of a Calvinist. I hesitate to say this because there are so many people on this board who write out of ignorance and really dont know the issues. Some cannot even spell the word "calvinist" correctly but commonly spell it "Calvanist." I dont want to present myself as much better then them, but I hope I have something worth saying below.

I could make this whole post shorter by just stating my conclusion. It is that God is perfectly righteous and God is completely sovereign. But he must create evil because he created the universe for the single purpose of his glory. It is his glory to manifest all aspects of his divine nature. To do this, he must create a universe in which evil exists so that he can demonstrate his hatred of evil. He could have created a universe in which evil was theoretical and never actually happens, but would that actually demonstrate the attributes of God such as justice? To completely demonstrate God's glory God must then create a universe in which evil actually occurs. So then, evil occurs for the glory of a sovereign and righteous God.

The problem of evil presented by the Atheist you mention is a common issue. It is the old question concerning
1---Is God all powerful?
2---IS God perfectly holy and righteous?
3---Then how did he create a world in which sin entered the world?


Paul addresses questions very close to the questions concerning the presence of evil in the world in Romans 9. If you read the verse below, it looks like Paul's hypothetical opponent is taking the same exact position that your atheist opponent is presenting.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?

The problem, is that Paul's answer is not easy to swallow. It presents a God so extremely sovereign that he cannot be questioned. Notice the answer below.
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
In other words, God is so sovereign, that he can be perfectly righteous and still choose to create a world in which evil came to exist and this does not make God evil. The issue is that the distance between the creator and his creation is so great, that God can do with his creation as he pleases and we have not right to complain what purpose in creation that they serve. In your illustration, can the moth complain against God that he was destroyed by the squirrel? Also if you read more of Romans 9, can the pot complain against the potter "why have you made me thus?"
21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:

In the illustrations of the Atheist in your post, God is properly represented as sovereign. He is the creator with infinite choices of how he can create. I once gave an illustration of Gods sovereignty, and someone "one uped" me and gave a better illustration. It was a good illustration. God sovereignty is like the author of a book. God in eternity past wrote the book in a way that most glorifies himself. But the parts of the book that speak of evil, he had not part in any of the evil. And in the end, the author only took part in good and righteous things. In the book he demonstrates his own worthiness and righteousness above all that he created (wrote in the book). Romans 9 tells us he has that right because he is the creator and he is God.

Who are we to demand of God that he answer to us. When Job demanded of God an answer to all the evil that happened to him and his family, God answered "where were you when I created Leviathan." Job is a mere part of creation, and God can make him a pot fitted for destruction, or a pot fitted for glory.

The bottom line with your atheist is that he things he found that magical concept which destroys the possibility of a sovereign and holy God. The problem is that he is arguing from a presupposition of the equality of man and God, and that the creature can have the sovereignty to call the creator to account for the way he wrote the book (made his creation).

This whole matter can go even deeper. The question can be moved to Adam. Did God really create Adam with the ability to choose righteousness or evil? If God decreed the fall, what chance did Adam really have? The issue can go to something call "supralapsarianism or infralapsarianism."

Nevertheless, in the end (as I said at the beginning), evil glorifies God when he demonstrates his righteous indignation and judges evil. Actual evil (not just potential) then manifests Gods character of sovereignty and righteousness and justice. The humanist will always start with presuppositions that creation is all about man, and mans greatest potential. The Christian should think different. Creation is all about Gods glory, and God intended to even use evil for his glory. Notice once again verse 22.
22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: It is for the glory of God that he makes his wrath known against sin. He only does this after much longsuffering, but sin and evil must occur, yet God is righteous and just and all powerful. But your atheist friend will never believe it because he starts from humanist presuppositions.

 

[mondar]

A fairly good article on this issue can be found at...

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2 ... m-of-evil/

I dont know the man that wrote this, but it seems OK to me.

 

[kenan]

I'm still working my way through it, but I really appreciate your response. I particularly liked "The problem is that he is arguing from a presupposition of the equality of man and God, and that the creature can have the sovereignty to call the creator to account for the way he wrote the book (made his creation)." - I'll have to remember that quote whenever this argument comes up.

 

[rEVOLVEr]

I honestly don't know what's so hard to understand the post. It's pretty straight forward and based on logic.

 

[kenan]

I honestly don't know what's so hard to understand the post. It's pretty straight forward and based on logic.

Which one, the original post or the response? They're both ultimately pretty straight forward (as straight forward as matters of the Almighty can be anyways) and logical.

 

[rEVOLVEr]

I honestly don't know what's so hard to understand the post. It's pretty straight forward and based on logic.

Which one, the original post or the response? They're both ultimately pretty straight forward (as straight forward as matters of the Almighty can be anyways) and logical.

I referred to the original post.

 

[kenan]

I referred to the original post.

Ah. In any case, what you are implying with your original statement is invalid because the response was also straight forward and logical :dunno

 

[veteran]

Here's a mammoth of a post made by a militant atheist fellow on a forum that I frequent:

....

Any sort of rebuttal that anyone can provide in response to this? I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around it.

It's impossible to understand anything about this subject without a lot of Bible study. Even then, our understanding is limited. But that guy isn't even close with his consideration of available options.

The answer begins to come forward by going backwards in time within God's Word:

1. Study Ezekiel 28. God shows us there He ORIGINALLY created Satan PERFECT in his ways, meaning GOOD. Satan was created a cherub that covereth, meaning his ORIGINAL duty was to guard God's Throne. That totally scraps false ideas that God created evil, when He actually first created Satan as a good cherub. Satan rebelled against Him in coveting God's Throne. That was Satan's specific sin against God.

2. The very FIRST sin was not Adam and Eve disobeying God in His Garden. It was Satan coveting God's Throne, in wanting to be GOD in His stead. By the time Satan was tempting Adam and Even as "that old serpent" (Rev.12:9), he was already in his role as the adversary.

3. What is evil per God's Word? Not every KJV rendering of the word "evil" in the OT is the same Hebrew word. And the Hebrew word for 'evil' can apply to a whole LOT of applications, like spoil, misery, mischief, adversity, calamity, etc. 1 John 3:4 also defines sin as the transgression of the law, meaning God's laws. Satan's sin involved transgression of God's moral law, that of wanting to be God, and coveting His Throne. Thus evil can be defined by the idea of sin, or transgression of God's law.

4. The 'idea' of death must also be understood. In God's future Kingdom in His Eternity, we are shown in many OT passages all sin will stop when Satan, the abode of hell, and his followers, and DEATH, are destroyed in the lake of fire (Rev.20 about that destruction). This reveals that even the concept of 'death', began with Satan's original rebellion. It's also why Satan was then given power over death, since he caused it.

5. A time 'of old' must be understood. What time was that, when Satan was first perfect in his ways, following God, even dwelling right there in the midst of the "stones of fire" (God's Altar, per Ezek.28)? It was a time prior to God creating Adam and Eve and placing them in His Garden per Genesis 2. In Rev.12:3-4 we are shown when Satan first rebelled, he also drew one third of the angels ("stars") into rebellion with him. And, we are given a beast kingdom system along with that, one of seven heads, seven crowns, and ten horns. Ezekiel 31 also gives a parable about Satan before he rebelled. This is why the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" represents Satan; it's because he was originally created a good cherub, but became evil (i.e., a lawbreaker).

6. Then when all that is considered, and it is a requirement that must be heeded about this subject, what does that show about the idea of evil, sin, death, etc.? It did not come from God. Some would argue that the seed of evil had to have been at least planted in Satan when God created him. Not necessarily for it depends on how... one looks at it, only that God created even the angels with a will, not wanting to FORCE them to love Him. Did God know what would happen if the "sons of God" failed to obey Him? Yes. Did God cause Satan to do what he did against Him? No. This is why Paul would claim God is not the author of confusion. Satan original sin definitely caused the first confusion.

7. There is no such idea in God's Word that Satan has equal power against God. Instead, God shows that in this earth age since Adam, God will USE Satan as His punishing rod upon all others who rebel against Him, even upon the rebellious of His Own chosen people (Isa.10). For the purposes of this earth age, God has setup His elect that form His representatives on earth for the Gospel'. He sent His Son Jesus Christ to be a propituation for our sin, to see who wants to live in the Eternity with Him. We must have free-will today to make our own choice. Everyone, even the young infant that dies, will have had their time to choose per God's timetable.

8. ONLY Satan and the angels which rebelled along with him, have ALREADY been judged and sentenced to perish, literally. None else have been judged and sentenced to perish with him yet, not even his followers on earth today, even though God's Word shows us many will perish. Ezekiel 28:18 even shows how Satan will perish off this earth, forever.


Jer 19:3-6
3 And say, Hear ye the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle.
4 Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents;
5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:
6 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.
(KJV)

When Judah rebelled against God with following the ways of pagan nations around them, they practised the literal burning of their sons in fire, human sacrifices. God said such an idea never even came into His Mind.

By that, God is showing us something about His Omnipotent Nature. It means He does not sit around dreaming of all the ways His children might rebel against Him. Instead, it's Satan and his followers that stay awake at night dreaming that kind of evil stuff up. It's simply more ways to transgress God's laws, i.e., sin, and thus manifesting evil.

In the Jer.19:6 verse, that valley where Judah burned their sons in fire was known as Tophet, the valley of Hinnom. Our Lord Jesus pointed to that area outside Jerusalem when the word "hell' in the NT is the Greek word 'geena'. That's the literal place where the "lake of fire" is going to take place, on earth. In Isaiah 30 God says this about Tophet...

Isa 30:33
33 For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; He hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it.
(KJV)

Symbolic Tophet there is about the "lake of fire", and the king meant is Satan, the king over the bottomless pit of Rev.9.

What do even we do today with our garbage? It used to be burned mostly. That's God idea for this Tophet also. The Hebrew word for evil also means something that's good for nothing. And to 'nothing' it shall go, meaning burned and no longer existing, forever. Anyone concerned about their garbage they threw out last week? Likewise, when Satan and his followers are gone, we won't think about them either.

Only when that future destruction of Satan, hell, death, and the wicked is over, then God is going to do the following...

Isa 65:17-19
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in My people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
(KJV)

In Revelation 21:4 we are told that death will no longer exist. God is going to literally re-make our hearts and minds, for we have chosen to be with Him forever. Only after the rebellious are destroyed will God take away the idea of free will, as rebellion will never rise up again.

So the concept of free-will prior to that future time will have been for the purpose of showing Him real love. He could have created us like the above Isaiah 65 verses from the start, where we could never rebel against Him. But that wouldn't be showing real love to Him that counts. He doesn't want a bunch of robots running around that couldn't know what real love is, saying, "I love You, I love You." Likewise, with free-will, we have the capacity for understanding how much He loves us after we've sinned against Him, and He forgives our sin.

 

[kenan]

It's impossible to understand anything about this subject without a lot of Bible study. Even then, our understanding is limited. But that guy isn't even close with his consideration of available options.

I certainly hear that, my understanding as far as things go is pretty limited which is why I came here.

I really appreciate your response, I'm working my way through it as we speak :D

edit: I'm still having trouble with this statement in the original question: "God C is unique in that not only does it have unlimited options, but because it has the property of being omniscient, it knows BEFORE TAKING ANY ACTION what EVERY result of whatever it does will be"

Doesn't that mean that God knew that Satan would rebel, and that some humans would rebel against God, which would mean that it would be unfair to blame them for it? Or does the answer tie in with your last paragraph about real love?

 

[mondar]

edit: I'm still having trouble with this statement in the original question: "God C is unique in that not only does it have unlimited options, but because it has the property of being omniscient, it knows BEFORE TAKING ANY ACTION what EVERY result of whatever it does will be"

Doesn't that mean that God knew that Satan would rebel, and that some humans would rebel against God, which would mean that it would be unfair to blame them for it? Or does the answer tie in with your last paragraph about real love?

I would ask the question in this way.... "Why then did God choose not to show "real love" to Satan and the Angels that rebelled?"

 

[rEVOLVEr]

Here's a mammoth of a post made by a militant atheist fellow on a forum that I frequent:

....

Any sort of rebuttal that anyone can provide in response to this? I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around it.

It's impossible to understand anything about this subject without a lot of Bible study. Even then, our understanding is limited. But that guy isn't even close with his consideration of available options.

The answer begins to come forward by going backwards in time within God's Word:

1. Study Ezekiel 28. God shows us there He ORIGINALLY created Satan PERFECT in his ways, meaning GOOD. Satan was created a cherub that covereth, meaning his ORIGINAL duty was to guard God's Throne. That totally scraps false ideas that God created evil, when He actually first created Satan as a good cherub. Satan rebelled against Him in coveting God's Throne. That was Satan's specific sin against God.

I appreciate your effort trying to come up with an answer but I must tell you that you've wasted your time with the Bible.
The original post is about the concept of God.
However, since you've spent so much time doing your research and writing your comment, I will ask one question at the time about your post.
Regarding Ezekiel 28. If Satan rebelled against God, who is guarding God's throne?

 

[veteran]

Doesn't that mean that God knew that Satan would rebel, and that some humans would rebel against God, which would mean that it would be unfair to blame them for it? Or does the answer tie in with your last paragraph about real love?

Just because He created His children with free will still doesn't mean He did it just so He could blame them for rebelling against Him. As written in Revelation, God created all things to give Him pleasure. That's what He created us for too, to please Him. But how would our love be real if He forced us to love Him? So real love is the major factor in giving His children the option to obey or disobey Him.

Some are still using old pagan ideas like Pantheism to try and describe Him, instead of going to His Word to realize He created us with emotions like He has.

 

[veteran]

Here's a mammoth of a post made by a militant atheist fellow on a forum that I frequent:

....

Any sort of rebuttal that anyone can provide in response to this? I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around it.

It's impossible to understand anything about this subject without a lot of Bible study. Even then, our understanding is limited. But that guy isn't even close with his consideration of available options.

The answer begins to come forward by going backwards in time within God's Word:

1. Study Ezekiel 28. God shows us there He ORIGINALLY created Satan PERFECT in his ways, meaning GOOD. Satan was created a cherub that covereth, meaning his ORIGINAL duty was to guard God's Throne. That totally scraps false ideas that God created evil, when He actually first created Satan as a good cherub. Satan rebelled against Him in coveting God's Throne. That was Satan's specific sin against God.

I appreciate your effort trying to come up with an answer but I must tell you that you've wasted your time with the Bible.
The original post is about the concept of God.
However, since you've spent so much time doing your research and writing your comment, I will ask one question at the time about your post.
Regarding Ezekiel 28. If Satan rebelled against God, who is guarding God's throne?

Sounds like you don't enjoy studying God's Word. If you did, you'd probably had read how God setup certain created beings to guard His Throne, in Rev. they're called 'beasts' but in the Greek it's the word 'zoon'.

 

[veteran]

edit: I'm still having trouble with this statement in the original question: "God C is unique in that not only does it have unlimited options, but because it has the property of being omniscient, it knows BEFORE TAKING ANY ACTION what EVERY result of whatever it does will be"

Doesn't that mean that God knew that Satan would rebel, and that some humans would rebel against God, which would mean that it would be unfair to blame them for it? Or does the answer tie in with your last paragraph about real love?

I would ask the question in this way.... "Why then did God choose not to show "real love" to Satan and the Angels that rebelled?"

You're question doesn't make sense, because what part of God creating Satan originally good as a covering cherub to guard His Throne, being right there in His direct Presence, don't you understand? God said in Ezekiel 28 that Satan was 'perfect in his ways' at that time before he rebelled. The idea is that God set him up high. How could you not see God's love towards him in that?

 

[mondar]

..... But how would our love be real if He forced us to love Him? So real love is the major factor in giving His children the option to obey or disobey Him....

Do we have free will in heaven? If in heaven we will no longer have "free will" does this mean that we are forced to love God in heaven? So then no one could possibly love God in eternity because it will not be "real love?"

Lets explore this concept of "forced love" for consistency a little more. At what point is "forced love" actually forced? If God draws men (John 6:44) to him is that "forced love?" If God changes the nature of the heart of some (heart circumcision) so that they "love Jehovah they God with all your heart" is that forced love?
6 And Jehovah thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
If God takes away a stoney heart and gives us a different heart is that forced love?
19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh;

Kenan, theology is everything. It determines our approach to Atheists. I, of course, would not approach the subject speaking of "free will." I spoke of presuppositions and you noticed it. I agree with you that it is the right track. The atheist is an atheist because he starts from naturalistic presuppositions. The athiest dismisses any evidence that is not filtered through his own naturalistic world view which says the miraculous does not exist. Yet if you think of that, a miracle is not a part of nature, but above and beyond nature and therefore beyond scientific investigation. The miraculous is not necessarily observable in history after its occurs. You cannot do a repeated experiment on it and it cannot be tested. If you investigate Atheistic epistemology, it can never admit anything beyond the natural. Yet how can you know that either things exist beyond the natural or they do not. It is a presupposition.

The argument of atheists using evil is not conclusive either if you use free will ( veteran ), or if you do not (mondar). But I would suggest that you will get to the heart of the matter (excuse pun) if you attack the atheists presuppositions much better then dabbling with evidential proofs.

 

[mondar]

edit: I'm still having trouble with this statement in the original question: "God C is unique in that not only does it have unlimited options, but because it has the property of being omniscient, it knows BEFORE TAKING ANY ACTION what EVERY result of whatever it does will be"

Doesn't that mean that God knew that Satan would rebel, and that some humans would rebel against God, which would mean that it would be unfair to blame them for it? Or does the answer tie in with your last paragraph about real love?

I would ask the question in this way.... "Why then did God choose not to show "real love" to Satan and the Angels that rebelled?"

You're question doesn't make sense, because what part of God creating Satan originally good as a covering cherub to guard His Throne, being right there in His direct Presence, don't you understand? God said in Ezekiel 28 that Satan was 'perfect in his ways' at that time before he rebelled. The idea is that God set him up high. How could you not see God's love towards him in that?

Gods love toward man is a redemptive love. How is God original creation of Satan as "originally good a "redemptive love." You compare apples and oranges.

 

[mondar]

The was posted on aomin.org. It has to do with Richard Dawkins, a well known atheist. Watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFamS4RG ... _embedded#

Then check out the response by Turretin Fan here...
http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3668

It looks like Dawkins can't run with the big dawgs.

 

[mondar]

Another thing about the "free will" explanation and atheism. Free will might account for the evil done by man, but does it account for natural disasters?

 

[veteran]

Gods love toward man is a redemptive love. How is God original creation of Satan as "originally good a "redemptive love." You compare apples and oranges.

You're still refusing to heed God's Word like it shows in Ezek.28 where God revealed He originally created Satan a cherub that covereth that was "pefect in his ways" before he rebelled. By implying that God created Satan originally as evil and rebellious is to say that God, and not the devil, is responsible for ALL evil. Our Heavenly Father is NOT responsible for evil acts, nor the original creation of evil. This is WHY Satan, and those who follow him are going to perish in the future, and be no more forever. Otherwise, if God was responsible for Satan's evil acts, then how could God then judge and sentence him to perish?

Also, the Isaiah 65 Scripture reveals God is going to make Jerusalem and her people a joy, meaning even the concept of rebellion will be taken away in His future Eternity, the former things not remembered. That's how He will ensure there won't be another rebellion against Him. Now those who still want to be their 'own' god, wanting to have a will that can go against God, will follow Satan into the lake of fire and also be no more. That's what the "second death" of Rev.20 is about.