1. Does God need man more than man needs God? ie,
does God have meaning outside of the context of man?
Tough question, I think it's quite mutual. God and man are for each other. I think perhaps God may work through other forms of life, but that's just me.
"If God did not exist, man would have to invent God in order to offer and threaten sufficient rewards to inspire an orderly society." -
http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99931.qna/category/pt/page/questions/site/iiim
2. Was Lucifer God's first experiment in the realm of free will?
Obviously a fallen angel chooses to fall. And if so, didn't
God learn his lesson? Or does God too despair and need
to know if he could be freely loved? (Apparently, this is
part II of question 1)
I suppose so, although I don't think it would be a "screw up" by God, if you believed he was all-knowing. Perhaps just as you said - an experiment. Maybe someone else has a better answer for this one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From
http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99770.qna/category/th/page/questions/site/iiim
First, there is the free-will answer: Man/Satan chose by his own free will to be evil. Evil exists, but God had nothing to do with it. Satan is the author of evil, not God. The problem with that is there is no sufficient cause for the effect. If Satan was perfect, then a suitable cause for the effect of evil could not come from him. Having a free will doesn’t create motivations or causes where there are none.
Second, you have the honorable St. Augustine who said that evil is not a thing, but the absence of a thing. It is the absence of good we see when we sense evil. So, God didn’t create evil—neither did man. It does not exist. Problem: Evil sure does seem real. It may not exist like I do, like beings do, it’s not on the same level as the number 12 or the color “white”. Its effects are far too obvious to not exist in some form. Plus, Augustine said in other places that moral good is absent from all sorts of soulless objects like chairs or neckties, but that absence of good does not instantly make them evil. God pronounced creation good, but Augustine’s solution seems to leave any thing that is absent of moral good as evil. Though I really don’t like neckties and have a sneaky suspicion they are evil. So Augustine was only mostly wrong.
Modern Charismatics have a solution: God is good all the time! God only gives, the devil takes, suffering and evil do not come from God, but from the devil. Problem: I don’t mean to be uncharitable towards our charismatic friends, but that’s not in the Bible. The Scriptures say the opposite, that those who live godly lives will necessarily find suffering and persecution as part of their daily bread. God gives a painful promise to his people when Paul says to Timothy, “In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”(2TI 3:12 ) So that solution is just not possible.
The “normal” Reformed answer is that we don’t have a problem of evil, but a problem of good. The mystery isn’t that God could allow evil to begin and continue to exist in the world—the mystery is that God would allow any good to happen to bad people like us. True enough, but that’s no help. It’s an answer to a question, but not the question of why do we have evil in this world. But it is true—it’s just not the answer to “Why is there evil in the world?”
I believe the reason why Satan could be created perfect, and yet fall, is that while he was perfect, he was still a creature, not a creator. He was not a deity — he was lower than God. Only God is immutable (1 Samuel 15:29; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17). Thus, Satan could “naturally” degrade without God forcing him to sin or inject him with unbelief. God allowed it to happen for his greater glory, but he did not force it upon Satan or mankind.
This is how “perfect” beings could sin—they were created perfect, but were vulnerable to the impact of time upon those who are not God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a pretty interesting read though:
http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99838.qna/category/th/page/questions/site/iiim
3. There is so little written on Judas in the New Testament
and he is such a pivotal character. Why do you think he
betrayed Jesus? Seems to me as treasurer to a Messiah
who had many rich supporters, he'd have access to
all the funds he could embezzle and he wouldn't need
to betray him for money. There is something more
going on here? Any theories? I've heard theories that Judas
was a revolutionary and things weren't quite going as
planned--that he wanted the arrest of Jesus as a catalyst,
never knowing they would go so far. Jesus calls him Friend
in the NT. I don't believe the term was meant lightly. Was
he a pawn--a necessary catalyst? What is the dynamic?
Was there an agreement between the two that Judas would
betray him so his mission could be fulfilled?
I think Judas betrayed Jesus because Jesus didn't fit his own version of the messiah. Perhaps he did not expect the messiah to show true human emotions or associate with the outcasts of society. More going on here? I think he had plenty of doubts about Jesus being the real messiah, and money was all it took for him to betray. I don't think there was an "agreement", but some have suggested to me that somebody had to do it. The answer is arguably dependent on which doctorine makes the most sense I guess.
