Strategy of the Devil

[Mike Elphick]

A recent article on the Creation Ministries International website compares the temptation at the Fall with the work of Satan on society through the effect of 'Darwinism':-

In Genesis 3 we read the account of the first temptation of Adam and Eve by Satan. The strategy of the devil was successful and led to our first parents' disregard of God’s Word to them and their rebellion against God Himself. Today Satan continues to use the same tactics, which produce the same result, namely, the disregard of mankind for the Word of God, and the rebellion of mankind against the authority of God.

These tactics are stated as being:-

1. To doubt the Word of God (Eve doubted the truth of something that God had said).
2. To deny the Word of God (Satan denies truth of what God had said ('you shall surely die').
3. To disregard the judgment of God (ignore the threat of death).
4. To defame the character of God (if Eve ate the fruit she would be 'as God').

The essence of all sin is the desire in the heart to be independent of God. This results in the choosing of self-interests rather than God’s interests, and the gratifying of self as the chief end rather than obeying God. In the case of Adam and Eve, the final act was an expression of the sin that had already been committed in the heart and mind.

Conclusion
In the past one-and-a-half centuries the rise of Darwinism and the associated acceptance of theistic evolution and liberal theology by many church leaders have done more to cast doubt on and to deny the truth of the Word of God than any other cause. The effect has been that Western society not only does not believe in the judgment of God—it does not even believe in the existence of a God whose chief attribute is holiness. Satan's strategy, 'which worked with Eve, has proved to be no less effective with modern man.' Strategy of the Devil

This nasty, arrogant article is telling those 'liberal' Christians, who accept evolution in one form or another (including their church leaders), that they are denying the truth of the Word of God. They go on to state that Darwinism has caused Western society to disbelieve in the existence of a God and that this therefore demonstrates the success of the Devil's strategy.

As any statistician will state, in order to show a relationship between two variables you have to demonstrate cause and effect. Maybe it has nothing to do with 'Darwinism', but with the growth of capitalism, or scientific enlightenment in general or even greater prosperity. If many (most?) Christians can accept evolution, where is the cause and effect of 'Darwinism' on belief in God. Don't most secular people believe in a 'higher power' anyway?

It never fails to astonish me how SIN is a such a central theme of YECism. It can brave the facts of science, radiometric dating, ancient starlight etc, but without the Fall and Curse, YECism completely falls apart. What is this fascination with the forbidden fruit? Is it just the eventual promise of redemption that makes it an absolute necessity? Or maybe it's basically a technique for controlling their flocks .

You only have one life and there's only one Earth upon which to live it. It is a wonderful, beautiful place, and we need to take care of it, not as stewards (as the Bible states), but as part of a web of interdependencies, not only with other living organisms, but also with the complexities of our environment.

This Earth is all we've got.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is this fascination with the forbidden fruit?

It's called Original Sin, and it is the source of what we call the Sin Nature.

 

[Mike Elphick]

It's called Original Sin, and it is the source of what we call the Sin Nature.

I know what it's called. Us 'evolutionists' have an explanation for feelings of guilt, summarised as the evolutionary conflict between the requirements of individual selection (selfishness) against the needs and survival of one's society (altruism).

Put simply, guilt puts a damper on selfishness.

 

[ttfn]

It's called Original Sin, and it is the source of what we call the Sin Nature.

Either God sanctioned Original Sin of he's not as powerful as you think he is.
Unless God didn't know what Eve was going to do? in which case he's not what you are making him out to be when even Satan can give him the run around.

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive! Sir Walter Scott,

 

[AV1611VET]

I know what it's called. Us 'evolutionists' have an explanation for feelings of guilt, summarised as the evolutionary conflict between the requirements of individual selection (selfishness) against the needs and survival of one's society (altruism).

Put simply, guilt puts a damper on selfishness.

And the Sin Nature says you're "guilty", whether you feel guilty or not.

There are some, like Klebold and Harris, who don't share that evolutionary definition of guilt and can go out and kill w/o remorse.

 

[Mike Elphick]

And the Sin Nature says you're "guilty", whether you feel guilty or not.

Bunk! That's where I want an explanation: what's so appealing for YECists about immersing themselves in guilt? Can't you see 'Original Sin' is just a story in the Bible that attempts to explain why we feel guilt? And the Curse explains, for extreme anthropocentric man, why the world is not the perfect place it should be.

There are some, like Klebold and Harris, who don't share that evolutionary definition of guilt and can go out and kill w/o remorse.

And that explains why all secular teenagers are shooting their peers and wearing 'survival of the fittest' t-shirts and why there's no teenagers left? Nonsense! Those moral nihilists never understood evolution in the first place — they were sick — nothing to do with Darwin.

Contrary to YECist lies, evolution explains morals; those that accept evolution do not abandon morals.

 

[Ar Cosc]

And the Sin Nature says you're "guilty", whether you feel guilty or not.

There are some, like Klebold and Harris, who don't share that evolutionary definition of guilt and can go out and kill w/o remorse.

Why am I guilty because someone supposedly ate a fruit she was told not to several thousand years ago? This doesn't seem fair. I though God was supposed to be just. Guess the bible isn't as inerrant as you seem to think.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bunk!

Not bunk.

That's where I want an explanation: what's so appealing for YECists about immersing themselves in guilt?

There's nothing 'appealing' about it, Mike.

Whether we like it or not, it's true.

Can't you see 'Original Sin' is just a story in the Bible that attempts to explain why we feel guilt?

No, I can't see that.

The Bible says our Sin Nature begins @ conception; therefore, it's not a matter of feelings.

People can commit atrocities and feel good about it.

And the Curse explains, for extreme anthropocentric man, why the world is not the perfect place it should be.

Fortunately, man is not the center of the universe -- God is.

And that explains why all secular teenagers are shooting their peers and wearing 'survival of the fittest' t-shirts and why there's no teenagers left?

-- do what?

Nonsense! Those moral nihilists never understood evolution in the first place — they were sick — nothing to do with Darwin.

If you're talking about Klebold and Harris, they were more than sick, they were sinners.

It's what we call sin sick.

Contrary to YECist lies, evolution explains morals; those that accept evolution do not abandon morals.

Whatever.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why am I guilty because someone supposedly ate a fruit she was told not to several thousand years ago?

You're not.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

You're not a sinner because you sin -- you sin because you're a sinner.

If there were no Sin Nature, then the first time you committed a sin, you would technically then become a sinner.

But that would mean that Jesus would have to come back and die on the cross for every individual that became a sinner when he committed that first sin.

But by making Adam the federal head of the human race, Jesus only had to die 'once for all'.

 

[Cabal]

You're not.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

You're not a sinner because you sin -- you sin because you're a sinner.

If there were no Sin Nature, then the first time you committed a sin, you would technically then become a sinner.

But that would mean that Jesus would have to come back and die on the cross for every individual that became a sinner when he committed that first sin.

But by making Adam the federal head of the human race, Jesus only had to die 'once for all'.

Why are you trying to make out that a certain approach is preferable as a matter of convenience to an omnipotent deity?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are you trying to make out that a certain approach is preferable as a matter of convenience to an omnipotent deity?

You mean like -- for instance -- where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea?

I mean -- they could have crossed anywhere -- right?

 

[Cabal]

You mean like -- for instance -- where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea?

I mean -- they could have crossed anywhere -- right?

Not the same thing - you're claiming that it was more efficient/convenient/call it what you will for God to act in a certain way as opposed to a different way.

If omnipotence is on the table, why should such a thing even be an issue?

 

[jayem]

You're not a sinner because you sin -- you sin because you're a sinner.

Did God create us with a sinful nature? How else would we have this tendency to sin?

 

[Mike Elphick]

That's where I want an explanation: what's so appealing for YECists about immersing themselves in guilt?

There's nothing 'appealing' about it, Mike.

Ok, "appealing" is perhaps the wrong word, but for YECists, guilt and sin are monumentally important — over and above dinosaurs, Flood and the Grand Canyon...

Can't you see 'Original Sin' is just a story in the Bible that attempts to explain why we feel guilt?

No, I can't see that.

As an outside observer, I'd say my explanation was pretty good — better than the previous use of astrology. You have to imagine man waking up, as it were, and trying to figure out how the world works.

The Bible says our Sin Nature begins @ conception; therefore, it's not a matter of feelings.

I'll never believe that. However, a baby does need to be egocentric as part of its survival strategy — altruism and cooperation come later as the child acquires the prevailing culture.

People can commit atrocities and feel good about it.

You will always get rogues — that's one extreme of biological variation. However, those sort of rogues are often the consequence of disfunctional families, i.e. where culture has not been properly learned.

And the Curse explains, for extreme anthropocentric man, why the world is not the perfect place it should be.

Fortunately, man is not the center of the universe -- God is.

Unfortunately, one could say that God was made by man making him even more anthropocentric.

And that explains why all secular teenagers are shooting their peers and wearing 'survival of the fittest' t-shirts and why there's no teenagers left?

-- do what?

Yeah, if 'Darwinism' leads to loss of morals and 'anything goes' then in a country with a gun culture all the kids should have shot each other up. The fact that you still have 99.999% of all your teenagers means the YECist taunt is untrue.

Nonsense! Those moral nihilists never understood evolution in the first place — they were sick — nothing to do with Darwin.

If you're talking about Klebold and Harris, they were more than sick, they were sinners.

It's what we call sin sick.

Call it what you like, it had nothing to do with evolution

Contrary to YECist lies, evolution explains morals; those that accept evolution do not abandon morals.

Whatever.

You accept that then?

 

[keith99]

No, the strategy of the Devil is to instil pride into men, so that they think they and they only understand Scripture and God. Once that is done his quite willing and ignorant minions work hard to drive men away from God and all the time are securely armored in their own conceit and ignorance. The whole time thinking they are doing God's work when they are in fact Satans best tools!

Dang I would have nmade a good Jesuit.

 

[Assyrian]

You're not.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

You're not a sinner because you sin -- you sin because you're a sinner.

If there were no Sin Nature, then the first time you committed a sin, you would technically then become a sinner.

But that would mean that Jesus would have to come back and die on the cross for every individual that became a sinner when he committed that first sin.

But by making Adam the federal head of the human race, Jesus only had to die 'once for all'.

Our salvation depends on Adam?

 

[Assyrian]

Dang I would have nmade a good Jesuit.

Slight problem

 

[Naraoia]

No, the strategy of the Devil is to instil pride into men, so that they think they and they only understand Scripture and God. Once that is done his quite willing and ignorant minions work hard to drive men away from God and all the time are securely armored in their own conceit and ignorance. The whole time thinking they are doing God's work when they are in fact Satans best tools!

Dang I would have nmade a good Jesuit.

Post is made of win, sir

Slight problem

He did use past tense

 

[Son of the King]

Did God create us with a sinful nature? How else would we have this tendency to sin?

Another question to ask is "If we were created to love, would we not need the ability to hate?"

 

[eleazar57]

Why am I guilty because someone supposedly ate a fruit she was told not to several thousand years ago? This doesn't seem fair. I though God was supposed to be just. Guess the bible isn't as inerrant as you seem to think.

By its definition, "Just" means fair, as in, you do the crime, you'll do the time. A "just" God owes His created children their due punishment for ignoring His Word, seeking to supercede His position in the Universe, trying to be as powerful as Him, or to attain a position that no longer needed a sovereign Creator, One who possesses the right to bless His children, punish them, or wink and look the other way.

A just judge does not release guilty criminals onto the street so they can go out and offend again. Scripture says, "The wages of sin is death," and if you read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", written and presented by Jonathan Edwards in July of 1741, you have a graphic representation of the premise that God owes us nothing, in light of man's selfishness in setting himself up for a fall. He owes us no ray of sunshine, no breath of air, no drop of water...we deserve eternal separation from Him...and not fifty or sixty or seventy years down the road, when we shuffle off this mortal coil...but RIGHT NOW.

So that is what a "Just" God would do in response to our selfishness and disrespect of our Creator.

So what did He do? He didn't cast us all into the outer darkness...that wretched sentence is reserved for those who wish to deny God completely or at least argue against His sovereignty, claiming He has no right to ask anything of us...that He is at best an absent landlord or a product of an overactive imagination. He did not give us the punishment we were due...which would have been the just and fair response...and in His love and restraint He showed He is MERCIFUL. He did not give us the sentence we deserved...He showed mercy in His great love for us.

So...how to clean up the mess we made in our rejection of His authority, not unlike what much of the world practices today, as they deny Him or hold Him at arms' length, trying to rationalize the systematic theft and denial of His sovereignty? God said a sacrifice would be required...and there was only One that would suffice on all levels, that of Christ Himself. We could never afford the cost of the atonement through the sacrifice of our Savior on the cross...it is offered by a just and merciful God at no cost, based on God's limitless GRACE. He is a gracious God, affording us a means of regaining our lost righteousness, that we would be capable of being in His presence, despite our past failings.

How does anyone, when referring to the Creator of the Universe, acquire the arrogance to say, "Why am I guilty because someone supposedly ate a fruit she was told not to several thousand years ago? This doesn't seem fair."

What do we know of fair? On what do we base our brazen evaluation of God's motives, intents, or power? What allows us to thumb our nose at Him and shake off the responsibility we have to our Creator?

Either He is real...or He is not. If He is not, you're in the clear with that line of thinking. But I am convinced the opposite is true, and that it is His love for us and His desire to spend eternity with us that ultimately produced the opportunity to make it right, to pay our debt in full, though the sacrifice was not ours, but Christ's...and that of God Himself.

If God is real, and I believe He is, and if He created the universe and all within it, and I am certain He did, then He can make the rules...all of them. It's His playground, baseball diamond, bat, ball, bases, gloves, and even the snowcones after the game. He's large and in charge...He is...sovereign.

It cracks me up to hear people who say He doesn't exist generate paragraphs on what He was thinking, or how He isn't really all THAT powerful, or explain how He does what He does as if they were talking about their dachsund and why he always does his business in the left corner of the yard and not the right one.

The God of the Universe is going to defy understanding and analysis by those who mock Him, deny Him, or reject Him. You can no more know the mind of God than your cat could divine your plans for the coming weekend.

Whether Eve made the decision to commit the first sin or not isn't the point. We have free will, we tend to be self-involved and to deny outside expectations of how we live our lives...it was a matter of time. Could God have made us into sinless automatons, incapable of failing on any level to follow His instructions? Absolutely!

If He did...our salvation would not be contingent on a decision about whether or not to accept God's gift of Grace through the death of Christ on the cross in our place and His existence as the Son of God, the one Lamb whose blood could restore our righteousness in God's eyes. We would be robots...programmed to do no wrong. But we have the ability to fail, to be self-serving, to disappoint the God who loves us...and...we have the ability to decide...for ourselves...just who Jesus Christ is.

That is the most important decison any of us will make in our lifetime...and don't believe what some will tell you. God will not send a single person to hell...however...you will get to punch your own ticket...if that is truly what you choose. In the end, you can't blame anyone else for your poor decision. It's all yours.