Well, I've been getting lots of feedback on my question about Satan's sin (some comments on this blog, but mostly on a couple of message boards). Here are the main responses I have been given to how the Satan (of the traditional view) sinned despite lacking a fallen nature, a fallen world, and a tempter.
1. It's a mystery
Some said we shouldn't ask questions like this b/c it's not for us to know the answers. Others said it's good to ask such questions, but we can't expect to find the answers. It's among the mysteries.
2. Free will is enough
Some rejected the idea that we need a provoking element (fallen nature/world or tempter) to bring us to sin. They said free will, by itself, can produce sin. There need be no pull toward wickedness. Even if man needs a provoking element, angels may not.
3. Traditional view of Satan is wrong
Some agreed that the question was largely unanswerable and that this opened the door for a non-traditional view of Satan's origin. This usually included the idea of the Satan being created as a testing agent.
I respect all 3 of the above positions. Position 1 requires no further speculation (in fact, further speculation would be ignoring the position). Position 2 took many forms. The most annoying answer was that the reason the Satan became wicked was pride. But, to me, that is like answering the question with the question. Better forms of position 2 are respectable, but no satisfy my mind. Position 3 is, of course, worthy of consideration.
Tomorrow, I will consider 3 alternative views of Satan