Redemption: The Big Picture

[Josheb]

You're questions about Dispensational Premillennialism are off topic.

No, they are not. You may not understand hos DPism corrupts the biblical account of redemptive history but it does. The point of the op is to assert God's plan of redemption as it applies to the saints here on earth. DPism asserts a viewpoint that is much different from historical orthodoxy. You can deny that fact and/or ignore the fact but you cannot say it is irrelevant to this op.

The other questions have been answered. Go back and look. I'm not gonna dig it out for you.

Okay. I'll look and get back to you.

 

[Arial]

I never said it was....why do you suggest I did?

You are treating it as though it has equal authority as the Bible. How are you doing this? You are using it to interpret a particular scripture. And what Enoch says goes beyond what the Bible says. Why do you think it is not in the Protestant canon?

What i have said if Joel quotes from it..and Moses quotes from it...should we simply toss it aside like you want to do?

The fact that people in the Bible quoted from it does not mean that authenticates it. Paul quoted from pagan sources.
Acts 17:28, likely from Epimenides of Crete (6th century BC and Aratus a stoic poet and echoed by Cleanthes, another stoic poet).
1 Cor 15:33. A direct quotation from Greek playwright Menander.
Titus 1:12. From Epimenides of Crete.

Does that mean we can use those works to interpret scripture or that all else they said is scriptural?


.

 

[Arial]

In my heritage are blood relatives that have 6 fingers. Does that make me an offspring of demons? I had a guy on my construction crew named Tiny, who could nail up soffit and fascia on the eaves of houses without a ladder; he was the smallest of his brothers —only a little over 7 foot tall. Are they offspring of demons?

There are genetically very tall people in this world. Big deal (no pun intended). For all I know, there were 15 foot tall giants in (yes, I made this word up but I like it) tabloidic tribes in the past and wars between them and nomadic people, and they mostly got wiped out.

I was preparing to ask the same thing. @CrowCross.

Also "giant" is usually used in other ways than the only way Crow seems to know to use it.

"He was a giant of a man." Either meaning he was large, or powerful in authority for either good or bad.

 

[makesends]

I never said it was....why do you suggest I did?
What i have said if Joel quotes from it..and Moses quotes from it...should we simply toss it aside like you want to do?

Have you ever read Enoch 6?

No I have not, thank God. Why does Enoch 6 matter?

Have you read 'Til We Have Faces'? It's ok. It doesn't matter.

 

[Arial]

You're questions about Dispensational Premillennialism are off topic.

You have no problem telling someone he is off topic if it is a topic you do not want to discuss at the moment. And yet ever since yur first post, post #6 and we are now on post #64, you have done nothing but switch the topic to Gen 6 which is utterly irrelevant to the OP topic. In spite of the fact that you have been told repeatedly that it was off topic and to start a thread on it if that was all you wanted to talk about. You simply say it isn't off topic and continue to do as you please--as though it were your thread and you are above all the rules. This is being said to you as admin, so don't go get in a huff about me posting off topic here.

Any more post by you on the topic of giants or angels copulating with humans will be deleted and I will start the thread on your subject for you when I get the time. The responses to your off-topic post will stand so as to not have to delete the entire thread.

By inserting Gen 6 and all that followed into a thread that was about the big picture of redemption, you have done exactly what the OP is presented to avoid. Divide scripture from its continuous forward flow as the plan of Redemption unfolds historically, into presenting the Bible as a series of stories unrelated to one another, and with their own independent of the whole, theological and doctrinal puzzles to solve.

So here is a question for you pulled straight from the OP as a guide to getting you back on the rails.

From looking at the beginning, middle, and end of the story, and the scriptures the OP has attached to them, what would you say is God's purpose of the fall of humanity in the Garden of Eden when there were only two people?

 

[CrowCross]

The Bible does supply what I provided. What I provided was that many places in the Bible God's people are called "sons of God". Do you think fallen angels are called sons of God. And I wasn't speculating either because I did not say "This is what it means!!" I was just showing you that your way is not the only way that passage is seen. That doesn't matter to you. It is your way or the highway. All you have done is picked which theory or argument----all of which have been going on among theologians for centuries---and said if it is what you believe then it has to be right. Those passages in Gen 6 are arguably the most debated of all time in the Bible.

No, I haven't picked which theory I liked best. Over the years I studied the passages and theories and found some of them lacking. In fact I use to scoff at the fallen angel/marrying women theory.
Then I learned more of it and settled on it as being the best 'theory".

gen·et·ics
[dʒɪˈnɛtɪks]
noun
genetics (noun)
genetics (plural noun)

1. the study of heredity and the variation of inherited characteristics.

I didn't believe "Rosemary's Baby" was true either.

Did they cease to be spirit beings when they came to earth? And where does Scripture say they were on earth?

I'm not sure I understand that question...and go in multiple directions. Perhaps you could refine it a bitt.

 

[Arial]

No, I haven't picked which theory I liked best. Over the years I studied the passages and theories and found some of them lacking. In fact I use to scoff at the fallen angel/marrying women theory.
Then I learned more of it and settled on it as being the best 'theory".

I'm not sure I understand that question...and go in multiple directions. Perhaps you could refine it a bitt.

Neither I nor anyone else seem to be able to help you understand anything. You will just continue to argue about it. And I am not going to aid you any longer in your quest to stay off topic.

 

[CrowCross]

So here is a question for you pulled straight from the OP as a guide to getting back on the rails.

Fromm looking at the beginning, middle, and end of the story, and the scriptures the OP has attached to them, what would you say is God's purpose of the fall of humanity in the Garden of Eden when there were only two people?

The actual answer I don't know. I suggested God has legal boundaries. I could also suggest Adam and Eve were given free will to live or not live in those legal boundaries. Some might suggest that Adam and Eve were on probation. Some might suggest that God puts mankind through a test to see if they will be loyal and chooses them who don't continue in rebellion and human kind doesn't go the way of the angels. Some might even suggest Adam and Eve had to fall because they were not perfect like God is and only God can't sin. Some might say it is to show the God is also a judge or that God is love.......what do you say?

 

[CrowCross]

You are treating it as though it has equal authority as the Bible. How are you doing this? You are using it to interpret a particular scripture. And what Enoch says goes beyond what the Bible says. Why do you think it is not in the Protestant canon?

No I'm not. Did you know the Ethiopian bible still contains it?
Do you know the ancient Jews studied it?
Do you know parts of it were found with the dead sea scrolls?

But, now we are once again getting off topic.

 

[Arial]

The actual answer I don't know.

Hmmm. Amazing. Why is it difficult for you to see it when it is laid out, with Scripture, that connects the beginning, the middle and the end? Would't the end tell you what God's purpose is? And the beginning and the middle tell you how he planned to get to the end? And that the Bible is the story of Redemption playing out in history, always and in every place?
And that Christ is always and every place the subject, the central figure?

I suggested God has legal boundaries.

I suggest that God has no boundaries, legal or otherwise. Do you stand by that as stated or would you like to reword it?

I could also suggest Adam and Eve were given free will to live or not live in those legal boundaries.

You could. But my question was what was God's purpose of the fall, and a sub question to that, in the Garden of Eden when only Adam and Eve were created? He surely had one right?

Some might suggest that Adam and Eve were on probation.

Some in fact do, but that does not address the actual question.

Some might suggest that God puts mankind through a test to see if they will be loyal and chooses them who don't continue in rebellion and human kind doesn't go the way of the angels.

Some in fact do., They are called Dispenatiuonalists. So you see, that was not entirely off topic. What would have been off topic is if you then began talking about nothing but dispensational beliefs and diverted to first and second Thess and Ez and the white horse of Rev. But that does not address the question or that the question was directed at you to answer, not "some this" and "some that". The question being "What was God's purpose----that"?

Some might even suggest Adam and Eve had to fall because they were not perfect like God is and only God can't sin. Some might say it is to show the God is also a judge or that God is love.......

Since it is in the creation story, it would have something to do with why they were created and why God intended that they fall into sin. And it has to be related to all the rest of the Bible that follows. And it has to be working towards the end result. That is the thrust of my question.

what do you say?

Gen 3:15 God speaking to the serpent. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall crush your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

 

[Arial]

No, I haven't picked which theory I liked best. Over the years I studied the passages and theories and found some of them lacking. In fact I use to scoff at the fallen angel/marrying women theory.
Then I learned more of it and settled on it as being the best 'theory".

I'm not sure I understand that question...and go in multiple directions. Perhaps you could refine it a bitt.

I gave the definition of genetics because you mocked me by implying that I was comparing the genetic process that might produce giants to the same genetics as are demonstrated in the account of Jacob and Laban in Gen 30. I don't know if you genuinely thought that is what I was doing or you pretended that was what I was doing so you could scoff. Color genetics in animals are not the same genetic codes that might produce giants but they are both genetics., Do you understand?

I mentioned not believing "Rosemary":s Baby was a true story because in that movie the devil copulates with a human to produce an evil person to do his bidding., See the connection?

I asked if those fallen angel you say had sexual relations with humans women ceased to be spirit beings when they came to earth because God designed creation to propagate by like with like. Spirit beings and flesh and blood humans are not alike. I asked where the Bible says they came to earth---in those fallen angels because I would like to to show me where the Bible says that. But I no longer want you to answer that question as then we could stay on your topic and not the OP.

I just satisfied your confusion here, or attempted to. And no response to my clarification is needed. Subject closed iow.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
That seems to assume that his command was for all the ages, from the beginning and for eternity. I don't see any reason to assume that.

It's not an assumption. That command is reiterated in different wordings throughout scripture. After the flood God said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall on every living creature on the earth, every bird of the air, every creature that crawls on the ground, and all the fish of the sea. They are delivered into your hand. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you; just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you all things...."

Consider the part about filling the earth in the light of a mortal human. Can the earth literally be filled in a single lifetime? No. How many generations would it take to fill the earth and subdue it for God, turning what was desolate into a living, thriving alternative? One "age"? Two? How long would those ages be? So we see the assumptions are on the doubting side of that command, not the affirmative side. God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and several generations, after God had wiped the earth clear of all humans but eight, He uttered the exact same directive to Noah and his ilk . Would that constitute a new age or a continuation of the same old age? Where do we find the premise of any mention of "age" asserted in either passage? Nowhere. So let's not create nonsense and imagine it reason.

Generations later God told Abram, "I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you." Two generations later He told Jacob, "God also said to him, “I am God Almighty; Be fruitful and multiply; A nation and a multitude of nations shall come from you, And kings shall come from you." 400 years later He told the wandering Hebrews, "So I will turn toward you and make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will confirm My covenant with you." Jesus reframes the dominion mandate as the great commission before he ascended, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to follow all that I commanded you." Millennia after God first spoke those words to Adam and Eve, Paul was preaching to the Greeks and said, "He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation..."

That is a sampling of the many passages found throughout scripture that speak of multiplying, being fruitful, overcoming desolation, and ruling or asserting authority as agents of God.... all over the planet. No assumptions needed, wanted, or made.

Now you have plenty of reasons for knowing God's first command has never been repealed.


And this is very op-relevant because everyone assumes Paul is writing about Adam eating the forbidden kiwi when he says, "...through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men..." but the facts of history are that had Adam obey the dominion mandate he never would have disobeyed the prohibition against eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve were given authority over all the creatures in the garden and the serpent was a creature in the garden. Had Adam ruled over that creature as he had been directed to do, the fall might never have occurred. The first sin was not the eating of the forbidden fruit. The first sin was not ruling and subduing the serpent. The first act of disobedience was a failure of dominion.

The very next episode reported in scripture is another example of failed dominion.

Genesis 4:7
If you do well, will your face not be cheerful? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.

Master sin. Even in the sinful state God expected Cain to master sin. Sin is just another version of desolation. When God made the earth it was desolate. God planted a garden on it and told the humans he made to multiply be fruitful subdue the earth and rule over it. The same conditions existed just before Christ died. When Jesus returned to Jerusalem, he was confronted by the Jewish leaders multiple times and each episode illustrates the pervasive desolation that existed there. By the end of the day he has pronounced the dwelling of the Pharisees desolate. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah (and those are the ones I can think of in this moment) all spoke of the desolation that was Israel. Israel was supposed to be an example to all the other nations. They refused to be the proverbial light on the hilltop, the shining example, all others were to emulate but they failed to multiply, subdue, and rule. The history of much of the Bible is simply a replay of Genesis 3:6-7 in which Israel is constantly giving in to idolatry and adultery, subjugation instead of authoritative rule over all the desolation existing in the world.

It seems to me you make a few errors in argument. God giving a command —even repeatedly— doesn't imply humanity's ability to obey, nor does it imply God's intention. Furthermore, I said, "for eternity". That God has not repealed his first command does not mean it is for all temporal ages and into eternity. It only means that he has not repealed it so far.

Pretty much all you said is solid, that the command/theme is repeated throughout history, so I can agree that it is for the ages, (though you did not show at first that it was more than an assumption), and I could even add to your list with such things as Eph 1:22. The problem with doing so is that it shifts from being the purview of mankind into being Christ's job/position. Granted such passages may be talking about something else, but I think it is related. If it is not related, then I see no reason for eternity to be part of the edict nor intention. If it is related then it becomes God's purview, (which in reality it was, all along).

 

[Josheb]

makesends said:
That seems to assume that his command was for all the ages, from the beginning and for eternity. I don't see any reason to assume that.

It seems to me you make a few errors in argument. God giving a command —even repeatedly— doesn't imply humanity's ability to obey, nor does it imply God's intention.

I would normally agree with you. Sometimes God asks an individual or a group of individuals, to do what He knows they cannot do. However, in the case of the dominion mandate, that particular command comes in the form of a blessing.

Genesis 1:28
God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

And the next verse reports God's provision of all that had been provided for their sustenance. This is fundamentally different from the next command in which God announces what to do and what not to do, with an explicit statement for what happens if the prohibition is practiced.

Genesis 2:16-17
The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Furthermore, as I have already posted, many of the verses reiterating the "blessing-command" nature of the dominion mandate, God's purpose is disclosed (such as Acts 17:26's statement God made humans for the purpose of inhabiting the whole earth. The options are limited: inhabit to further God's will, inhabit to do nothing, inhabit to make things worse. Which is the most consistent with the whole of scripture?

So, again, the onus is on the side of the skeptic to prove the lack rather than on the side of the dominionist to prove the theme exists. Scripture repeatedly asserts the theme that here I have called the "dominion mandate" (also known as the "cultural mandate."). While modern-day dominionists have approached this in various ways and, in some cases, formed sectarian viewpoints the belief humans are supposed to cover the earth with godly precepts and practices in general has been the historical and orthodox position of the Church since the New Testament.

Are you suggesting Christians should not have dominion over the entire earth through the spread of the gospel? Are you suggesting the Holy Spirit is either incapable of making that happen, or not interested in making that happen?

Furthermore, I said, "for eternity". That God has not repealed his first command does not mean it is for all temporal ages and into eternity. It only means that he has not repealed it so far.

Meh. So what? A thousand million things could be said not to have occurred so far. You know that I will discriminate between "eternity" and what is "everlasting" inside creation. Nothing in creation is eternal. Furthermore, many occasions when the English says "eternal," the Hebrew or Greek is simply a reference to age. Sometimes the mention of the eternal has nothing to do with time but is qualitative. Having life that has a temporal quality is much different than life that is qualitatively eternal. On top of these concerns there is the matter, to which I only alluded to earlier in the thread, of the new heavens and earth coming down to the earth. I suggested the first verse of the Bible is an implicit division in creation in which the earth exists somehow separated from the heavens but in the end that division no longer exists. The earth is borught into the ternal aspect of the rest of creation (the heavens).

Pretty much all you said is solid, that the command/theme is repeated throughout history, so I can agree that it is for the ages, (though you did not show at first that it was more than an assumption), and I could even add to your list with such things as Eph 1:22. The problem with doing so is that it shifts from being the purview of mankind into being Christ's job/position.

Again, the angel is in the details. When God first uttered the dominion mandate there were only good, sinless people. Every other time it's mentioned it occurs within a covenant context (assuming an implicit covenant relationship existed with Noah). In other words, God maintains the expectation for all humanity, but He has no expectation on-sinful man can accomplish the task where an expectation for goldy, God-enabled men can, should, and will accomplish it. You also know that often make note of the fact scripture is overwhelmingly about theists and most of that is about those living in covenant. There's very little about people existing outside of covenant and a miniscule amount devoted to the atheists. Overgeneralizing scripture to apply to nonbelievers where it doesn't specify that group is a mistake.

Granted such passages may be talking about something else, but I think it is related. If it is not related, then I see no reason for eternity to be part of the edict nor intention. If it is related then it becomes God's purview, (which in reality it was, all along).

False dichotomy. God constantly uses humans, and the most effective humans do what they do inspired, enabled, and empowered by God through His Spirit. Works of the sinful flesh have no merit.