Why Did God Plan for the Fall of Man?

[brightfame52]

This is what I said...

God decreed that Adam would sin from his own free will.

May I ask? What about that said you do not understand?

How are you defining to "decree something?"

God did decree that Adam sin by his own volition, so Adam had no choice but to sin by his own volition because God decreed it that way. In other words, it would have been impossible for Adam not to sin by his own volition.

 

[Josheb]

...God is so other than humanity....

Among the truest statements ever posted.

I suspect the answer to the OP question lies in what was going on before creation of this world...

Was there something going on before the beginning?

...that would make the fall neither a plan of or a plan for the fall. A perfect action. About all we can say is, "It just is."

I f I understand correctly, It's like my getting into my car and turning on the ignition. The cam shafts and crank shafts turn, the electricity flows, the pistons move, and all the constituent elements of the engine work to move my vehicle down the road but I am nor "planning" any of it. It all works simply as a function of design. Yet, despite that design, the imperfections of design and manufacturer and those of the world in which it operates, the engine will eventually fail. It will wear out. Some certain imperfection may cause a misfire that breaks a microscopically defective piston rod stressed by high temperatures, enormous pressure and an actual miniature explosion.

Creation was designed to work, and it was designed to work exactly according to God's design. It was a perfect and perfectly good creation BUT by God's design there exists two types of creatures with the potential to pour sand into the otherwise perfectly designed, perfectly running engine that didn't have any manufacturing defects until a pair of fools took a hammer to it.

I used to work with a guy who had doctorate degrees in physics and mechanical engineering, along with an MBA. Really smart guy. Could design, manufacture and fix anything, and then sell it for lots of money but compared to God he's an imbecile. God is the Maker of Physics, Mechanics, Engineering and Fruit-bearing.

For our perspective inside the fishbowl full of dirty water things look like a mess, but there is not a single particle of an atom that isn't doing what it was designed to do - either in thesis or antithesis.

We are introduced to a being in the Garden of Eden that is evil. He was already there.

I would clarify that to say he was already there by the time Genesis 3 occurs. I am unaware of anything in scripture informing us the adversary was around in sinful form between Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 3:1 but I am positive he was not in Eden in sinful form prior to Genesis 1:31. An evil creature living in a good creation and God calling it "very good," is self-contradictory.

God created everything He made in six days and at the end of that sixth day He examined and appraised everything He'd made and having done so He declared it very good. A utilitarian good, especially one with an evil creature and/or one where the means justify the ends is untenable with a God who declares woe on anyone who calls good "evil" (and vice versa).

So the adversary was there by Genesis 3:1 but he wasn't there in evil form prior to Genesis 1:31.

And he is allowed to tempt Adam and Eve.

Possibly, but I am not convinced "allowed" is the correct term. It's understandable such an appeal would be made because of the precedent of Job where God consents and the theological premise all things occur by either God's willful mandate or His divine consent, but there is a third option: design!

Satan does what satan does. Satan does what satan does and satan doesn't have to ask to do it; he cannot help but do what sin makes him do and the only one sovereign over sin is God. Satan is not a free agent, an autonomous creature who does anything apart from his Creator, but neither is he free to do anything apart from the sin that has made him dead and enslaved. Satan is a minion. He is a liar, the father of lies, and lying and murdering is what he does. If the tradition of Lucifer become satan is correct, then he's not a happy camper. His entire existence is one of misery. He is a carrion-eater and he can do nothing but "eat" the dead. He's a carp, a catfish, a scavenger. That is the purpose he serves in the Creator's creation.

That does not preclude God using him for specific purposes, but God does need to micromanage this as if what He designed will stop doing what He designed if He doesn't constantly keep an eye on it. That god is not a God. Again, I remind everyone of the dependency issue. God is not dependent on His creation and most definitely not dependent on sin. This is one of the reasons strict determinism is oxymoronic: if God MUST micromanage everything then He becomes a slave to His creation. God's plan cannot make Him dependent; it cannot reverse the issue of requirement to forcibly require God to do anything lest He and His plan fail.

That being said, yes, it is possible God "allowed" satan to tempt Eve and then Eve tempt Adam, but what God ordained from eternity did not make Him the author of sin or do violence to the will of either of the three creatures involved, or the contingencies of their respective causalities.

And our first parents fell from their perfect estate. That is what we know.

Yes.

Very important observation because they were good, unashamed, sinless creatures living in a good, unashamed, sinless world BUT they were also corruptible good, unashamed, and sinless creatures. That is the way they were made. They were designed to be corruptible..... and perfectly so . There was, conceivably, logically, the ability to remain in the good, unashamed, sinless never-corrupted-but-still-corruptible state but they'd still need the tree of life. They'd still need Jesus.

That, too, is what we know.

Though I often casually, speculatively, and not too seriously remember the first chapter of Job in this respect.

We know from what scripture tells us that the complete, full, in all its detail was known within the Godhead as the covenant of redemption. When was it known? From all eternity? God has all information, He does not learn it.

So, side tracking a tad, if more of us would contemplate such things as that from time to time, we may find that fear of God (reverence and terror)and some of the careless remarks about Him we see might diminish.

I'm not sure why Job or any of the other post-Genesis 3 persons were brought up in this thread. They are all examples of post hoc conditions. Any evidence of a "plan" they provide is that only of after-the-fact. David seduced and killed Uriah so God must have a plan for his doing so is a false-cause argument. That is the fundamental error of this op (and much of the rest of the thread). A better explanation is that David did what sinners do, and it doesn't much matter to God because 1) God has an all-encompassing already-existing plan that is unaffected by the miniscule creature's particular sin, and 2) it's all going to serve His and only His purpose.

God has mercy on whom He has mercy and it does not matter how the creature runs or wills, but on the will and purpose of God. The clay cannot say to the Poetter, "Why have you made me this way?" The Potter makes the elements that make clay and then He makes the clay, and the wheel upon which the pot is thrown, and He makes the pot with the features He wants the pot to possess and He and He alone decides the purpose of the pot. Some pots are made for noble purpose and some pots are made with ignoble purpose, quite often if not always one pot is hated before it is ever made and others are loved, and it does not depend on how the pot works or wills, but on the work, will, and purpose of the Creator.

God started out working with pure, good, unashamed, sinless, completely unadulterated clay but a trio of fools took it upon themselves to spoil the clay simply because they could. That's the way God originally designed the clay. Since that corruption, they clay has not say. All the clay is defective, and every pot has air bubbles in it that will cause the destruction of the pottery when it is subjected to fire.

Only grace changes any of it and the only one who does and can have any grace sufficient to fix those problems is God.

If Job was not fictional then Romans 3:23 applied.

Romans 3:23
...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...

So too did Romans 3:24.

Romans 3:24
...being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus...

As well as Romans 3:25
This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed...


The plan is not about us. We are not the focus of scripture. We are not the plan. Christ incarnate, crucified, resurrected, and ascended.... the first born of many, is the plan. Sin did not hinder that plan an iota of a smidgen.




(apologies for the length)

 

[Josheb]

Point of clarification: In Post #182 I am not espousing the "Blind Watch Maker" premise. God is not bound by any extreme position in human logic. God can be both incrementally involved in minute detail AND ALSO work creation by His design. The two are not mutually exclusive conditions.

 

[GeneZ]

What is the problem that some have here with God knowing Adam would fall and having it to happen?

[edit by mod]

If God wanted to create a fairy tale world of nothing ever going wrong?
We could never know God as we do now.

We could not know of His mercy.
We could not know of His power to protect.
We could not know......... His love.
We could not know of His intelligence!
We could not even know who we are!

Man would be no different than an animal or an insect.
Maybe, even like bacteria or a virus.

God decreed that Adam would fall so we can learn who God is with understanding.

..........

 

[sawdust]

This is what you were responding to with this post.

You answered the questions as though they were not part of an ongoing conversation dealing with the OP title. So really all you did was instead of phrasing what was questions, you put them forth as a statement of fact. Iow, no answer at all.

My point in asking them was to show God did not have to plan for the fall, therefore the OP question has no answer. In searching for that answer and discussing it back and forth, that conclusion should have been arrived at many pages ago.

But I guess the nature of the beast is such that we just can't stop defining God using our own finiteness as the plumbline.

It seems you missed the point. The very fact that this is the universe that God manifested, one with a fall and a solution to that fall, means God had to have the fall occur in order for all His purposes to be accomplished. This also means he had to have a plan for that fall. If there was any other way to accomplish His purpose without a fall, He would have manifested that universe. Keep in mind He takes no pleasure in death. Ezekiel 18:32

 

[Josheb]

Different Eden.

The angels had their Garden in heaven.
Adam had his on earth.

Just as the tabernacle on earth was a parallel to the tabernacle in Heaven!

​

They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. ​

This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: ​

“See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on​

the mountain.” Hebrews 8:4b-5​

What was in Heaven God had a copy made of it on earth! And, where do we ever see fiery stones to be found in the Garden Adam walked in?

“You were the seal of perfection,​

Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.​

You were in Eden, the garden of God;​

Every precious stone was your covering:​

The sardius, topaz, and diamond,​

Beryl, onyx, and jasper,​

Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.​

The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes​

Was prepared for you on the day you were created. ​

“You were the anointed cherub who covers;​

I established you;​

You were on the holy mountain of God;​

You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.​

You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,​

Till iniquity was found in you.​

​

Ezekiel 28:12-15​

Eden is not a tabernacle. Misappropriating Hebrews 8 and forcing it to apply to Eden and/or Ezekiel 28 is irrational. Ate best a false-cause fallacy or false equivalence. At worse it's blatant abuse of scripture. Besides, Ezekiel 31 would be a better (but still faulty) place from which to make that case.

Again?

Where do we see any fiery stones to be found in the Garden Adam walked in?

First, the fiery stones are not IN Eden. Re-read the text. Second, the numerous suns (stars) in creation are "fiery stones." Furthermore, since the tabernacle in Hebrews 8 is representative of the Church, the house built by God and not human hands, so too could be the fiery stones.

Revelation 1:20
As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

Stars equal angels and lampstands equal churches (congregations).

And, also again?

The angels had their own tabernacle in Heaven.

It was not Eden.

Their's was the one that the one on earth was a copy of!

It was not Eden.

The tabernacle of God is people.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

The angels had their "tabernacle, their temple, and their temple was them, not some building they made for themselves in which to worship God. It's not likely that God dwells in houses built by angels any more than He dwells in houses built by human hands! The infinite Creator does not dwell in finite creations created by finite creatures. He builds His own house.

Jude 1:6
And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,

Their "proper abode" was obedience. Those who did not obey God were cast out of the abode of angels and their destiny became destruction. That is exactly what happens to humans, too. Humans who disobey God stand condemned, will live, die, and then face judgment (sentencing) where the just recompense for sin will be meted out and - like the disobedient angels - they'll all get tossed into the fiery lake.

The one HUGE difference between the disobedient angels and the disobedient humans is that God saw fit to make a way of salvation for the latter but not the former.

We are here to think..... Not to simply repeat for a written test without thinking.

Yes, it is probably best if mistakes in exegesis are not repeated, especially without thinking.

Just because the tabernacle into which Jesus entered is a shadow of that which is in heaven does not mean there are two Edens. Not everything in heaven is copied on earth. Not everything on earth has an alternative in heaven. This is self-evident in the fact salvation is not available to angels; only humans. Jesus did not die for angels.

God has these truths placed in the Word to make us think!

Yep. Think about what I just posted. There is no Eden in heaven. Eden is never spoken of as existing in two places and it is never used in plural form in scripture. The one, single Eden is said to be made on earth, toward the east, around a river that becomes four others: Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and the Euphrates - all of which are on earth. The trees of Eden (Ezekiel 31) to which the adversary cannot compare are the tree of life (Christ) and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 3:22
Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever."

Isn't that exactly what the adversary aspired to do? To be like God, knowing good and evil and living forever?

Isaiah 14:13-14
But you said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."

He was on the holy mount of God and walked among the fiery stones (Eze. 28:14), one of which was the cornerstone of God's house over which he stumbled and before whom he will stand in judgment. A simple word search pertaining to how scripture uses the combination of fire and stone(s) will show these are references to an altar, the Law God gave Moses, the sanctification of a sacrifice or offering to God, of Zion/Jerusalem, of God's rock-shattering word, wrath, and/or judgment - all of which testify to Christ (not satan, and not two Edens).

Hebrews 8 and Ezekiel 28 should not be spliced together the way they were. There is a way to view the matter that is much more consistent with whole scripture than to imagine there are two Edens.

grace and peace ..................

To you, too.

 

[Josheb]

What is the problem that some have here with God knowing Adam would fall and having it to happen?

That has already been explained: God cannot be the cause of sin without being culpable for sin and God cannot make a plan that then makes Himself or His plan dependent on something that is wholly antithetical to His ontology and teleology.

Is there some difficulty understanding this?

If God wanted to create a fairy tale world of nothing ever going wrong?

He could not create a fairy tell that compromises His own character or makes Him dependent on the fairy tale.

We could never know God as we do now.

Red herring. This is not about knowing God. It is about correctly understanding what God has revealed. He revealed what He revealed so it would be understood.

We could not know of His mercy.
We could not know of His power to protect.
We could not know......... His love.
We could not know of His intelligence!

All of which we know of.

God decreed that Adam would fall so we can learn who God is with understanding...........

That has yet to be proven and, so far, there are multiple flaws in the case presented.

 

[fastfredy0]

He ordained without authoring sin and without doing violence to human volition

Define "authoring sin". Define "without doing violence to human volition".

 

[Josheb]

It seems you missed the point. The very fact that this is the universe that God manifested,

It is not the universe God manifested. The universe God manifested was stated by God to be very good (Gen. 1:31) and there was no sin in it. Humans manifested the current conditions, not God. This is plainly stated in Romans 5:12.

one with a fall and a solution to that fall,

Yes, the universe has a fall and a solution to that fall (for some) but that does not mean God manifested the fall.

...means God had to have the fall occur in order for all His purposes to be accomplished.

That is incorrect.

I have a wrench in my toolbox that tightens and loosens bolts. That wrench, that toolbox, and my possession of both have absolutely no bearing on my also having bug on my tomatoes in my garden. As I have argued, the fall has no bearing on God's purposes being accomplished and it is easy to see the purposes of God occur regardless of sin's existence or non-existence. The plan existed before sin existed and the plan was not made solely for the purpose of sin (if it all) because if the only reason any plan exists is sin then God and His plan are dependent on something fundamentally antithetical to God. The Law Maker is dependent upon lawlessness, and if He did not make sin then the Law Maker is dependent on a lawlessness He did not make - He is subject to creation, not the other way around.

That "god" is not a God, and he most certainly is not the God of the Bible.

In other words, there isn't just one flaw in the "God planned the fall" or "God planned for the fall" position; there are several.

This also means he had to have a plan for that fall.

No, it does not.

Do you have children? Did you plan to raise them well? Did you accomplish that task? Did you plan for all the possible experiences all those children would experience?

It's quite possible to have a plan that succeeds without also planning and planning for every minute detail of another's existence. Flawed and finite humans do it every day all around the world. Certainly, the Infinite Perfect Creator can do it, too.

If there was any other way to accomplish His purpose without a fall, He would have manifested that universe.

ROTFLMBO!

Ah! I see. Do you know now the mind of God and speak on His behalf to tell us all what and how to believe? God manifested the universe He wanted. That universe was declared by God to be good and sinless, not evil and sinful. Sin in this world was manifested by one man, not God, and God did not force that man to sin. God's plan and purpose for creation (the universe) need not be changed or in any way affected by the manifestation of sin. His plan is bigger than sin, not contingent upon it.

Keep in mind He takes no pleasure in death. Ezekiel 18:32

Hmmm... God manifested that in which He takes no pleasure.

Isaiah 53:10
But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.


Scripture appears to teach otherwise, at least on the occasion of His own Son's death.

1 Corinthians 15:50
Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

That is the way God made the universe. He made Adam (and Eve) mortal, not immortal. He made them flesh and blood. This is another example where God delights in death - the kind of death by which one is raised incorruptible and immortal. The death that comes from sin is not a delightful death, but it is not the only death in the universe. I susect God will also take great delieght in destroying death. Death will be dead and all of creation will rejoice.

Keep these things in mind.

 

[GeneZ]

It seems you missed the point. The very fact that this is the universe that God manifested, one with a fall and a solution to that fall, means God had to have the fall occur in order for all His purposes to be accomplished. This also means he had to have a plan for that fall. If there was any other way to accomplish His purpose without a fall, He would have manifested that universe. Keep in mind He takes no pleasure in death. Ezekiel 18:32

If there were no fall?

Could anyone know God's mercy?
Could anyone know God's forgiveness?

Could anyone know what justice means? That God is just?

Could we understand faithfulness?

If there were no fall?
Man would be a creature solely existing by instinct...

In a sense.. Adam and the woman before the fall?
If we could meet them as they were?
They would be (other than most likely pleasant) clueless and mindless.


Since the fall of man? The knowledge of God has grown exponentially!
Without the fall? We would be beyond dumb about God.

God knew what He was doing when He decreed the Fall.


..........

 

[GeneZ]

Ah! I see. Do you know now the mind of God and speak on His behalf to tell us all what and how to believe?

His Word does tell us.

The more we know His Word.
The more we know the Mind of Christ.

Knowing His Word does not boil down to a verse or two.
It comes after years of being taught the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation in detail.

Otherwise? Man is stuck with his own opinions. His own dogmas to cling to in the wind.


.............

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

It is not the universe God manifested. The universe God manifested was stated by God to be very good (Gen. 1:31) and there was no sin in it. Humans manifested the current conditions, not God. This is plainly stated in Romans 5:12.

Yes, the universe has a fall and a solution to that fall (for some) but that does not mean God manifested the fall.

That is incorrect.

I have a wrench in my toolbox that tightens and loosens bolts. That wrench, that toolbox, and my possession of both have absolutely no bearing on my also having bug on my tomatoes in my garden. As I have argued, the fall has no bearing on God's purposes being accomplished and it is easy to see the purposes of God occur regardless of sin's existence or non-existence. The plan existed before sin existed and the plan was not made solely for the purpose of sin (if it all) because if the only reason any plan exists is sin then God and His plan are dependent on something fundamentally antithetical to God. The Law Maker is dependent upon lawlessness, and if He did not make sin then the Law Maker is dependent on a lawlessness He did not make - He is subject to creation, not the other way around.

That "god" is not a God, and he most certainly is not the God of the Bible.

In other words, there isn't just one flaw in the "God planned the fall" or "God planned for the fall" position; there are several.

No, it does not.

Do you have children? Did you plan to raise them well? Did you accomplish that task? Did you plan for all the possible experiences all those children would experience?

It's quite possible to have a plan that succeeds without also planning and planning for every minute detail of another's existence. Flawed and finite humans do it every day all around the world. Certainly, the Infinite Perfect Creator can do it, too.

ROTFLMBO!

Ah! I see. Do you know now the mind of God and speak on His behalf to tell us all what and how to believe? God manifested the universe He wanted. That universe was declared by God to be good and sinless, not evil and sinful. Sin in this world was manifested by one man, not God, and God did not force that man to sin. God's plan and purpose for creation (the universe) need not be changed or in any way affected by the manifestation of sin. His plan is bigger than sin, not contingent upon it.

Hmmm... God manifested that in which He takes no pleasure.

Isaiah 53:10
But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.


Scripture appears to teach otherwise, at least on the occasion of His own Son's death.

1 Corinthians 15:50
Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

That is the way God made the universe. He made Adam (and Eve) mortal, not immortal. He made them flesh and blood. This is another example where God delights in death - the kind of death by which one is raised incorruptible and immortal. The death that comes from sin is not a delightful death, but it is not the only death in the universe. I susect God will also take great delieght in destroying death. Death will be dead and all of creation will rejoice.

Keep these things in mind.

What is the difference between the words Foreknown and Predestined?

 

[Arial]

Was there something going on before the beginning?

Yes. God has no beginning. The beginning in Gen is the beginning of the creation of our world and all that is in it.

I f I understand correctly, It's like my getting into my car and turning on the ignition. The cam shafts and crank shafts turn, the electricity flows, the pistons move, and all the constituent elements of the engine work to move my vehicle down the road but I am nor "planning" any of it. It all works simply as a function of design.

Yes, But there the analogy falls apart as all analogies of man to God eventually do.

Creation was designed to work, and it was designed to work exactly according to God's design. It was a perfect and perfectly good creation BUT by God's design there exists two types of creatures with the potential to pour sand into the otherwise perfectly designed, perfectly running engine that didn't have any manufacturing defects until a pair of fools took a hammer to it.

Very true imo.

I used to work with a guy who had doctorate degrees in physics and mechanical engineering, along with an MBA. Really smart guy. Could design, manufacture and fix anything, and then sell it for lots of money but compared to God he's an imbecile. God is the Maker of Physics, Mechanics, Engineering and Fruit-bearing.

For our perspective inside the fishbowl full of dirty water things look like a mess, but there is not a single particle of an atom that isn't doing what it was designed to do - either in thesis or antithesis.

Yep. The thing we forget and often give ourselves credit for. We may invent and design things but we are only able to do so because we have discovered (and that too by God's design and revealing) the wisdom and knowledge of God that exists in His design, that also keeps it running according to His design. And in that design and the parts and particles in it, if we look to see, is His faithfulness. One second of unfaithfulness in HIm, one second of Him turning, and it would all fall apart.

I would clarify that to say he was already there by the time Genesis 3 occurs. I am unaware of anything in scripture informing us the adversary was around in sinful form between Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 3:1 but I am positive he was not in Eden in sinful form prior to Genesis 1:31. An evil creature living in a good creation and God calling it "very good," is self-contradictory.

God created everything He made in six days and at the end of that sixth day He examined and appraised everything He'd made and having done so He declared it very good. A utilitarian good, especially one with an evil creature and/or one where the means justify the ends is untenable with a God who declares woe on anyone who calls good "evil" (and vice versa).

So the adversary was there by Genesis 3:1 but he wasn't there in evil form prior to Genesis 1:31.

I agree that it is not told us that the serpent was in the Garden of Eden before Gen 3. It is a gray area---one not clear---so all we can do is speculate, but those speculations should always be stated as such and never as fact and be reasoned from what we are given in the total of scripture. And you have done that and I do not disagree with you because I do not know. Your reasoning is sound. Nothing unbiblical about it that I can see. It could also be seen as the pronouncement of "very good" referred to what was just created and did not apply to the serpent. In the view I am putting forth, I do not see the serpent already being in the garden as a means justifying the ends, but as part of the purpose of God. Which I may get to fleshing out as I go through your post. It could become a veering off the topic of the OP and opening up a whole new discussion that should be separated. Although this discussion does directly go back to, at least in hindsight after it is fleshed out with details, to the question of the OP. I will leave that up to you to determine. But the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was also in the garden.

Possibly, but I am not convinced "allowed" is the correct term. It's understandable such an appeal would be made because of the precedent of Job where God consents and the theological premise all things occur by either God's willful mandate or His divine consent, but there is a third option: design!

I think it is part of the design. The war obviously is between God and satan and it is the design that defeats him. Just as satan can only be who satan is, so too God can only be who God is. And He is always sovereign over all His creation of who satan is one of. Evil exists simply by being the other side of the coin, not because it is created. Therefore the choice to do evil always exists with created beings who have a will and therefore make choices.

Satan does what satan does. Satan does what satan does and satan doesn't have to ask to do it; he cannot help but do what sin makes him do and the only one sovereign over sin is God. Satan is not a free agent, an autonomous creature who does anything apart from his Creator, but neither is he free to do anything apart from the sin that has made him dead and enslaved. Satan is a minion. He is a liar, the father of lies, and lying and murdering is what he does. If the tradition of Lucifer become satan is correct, then he's not a happy camper. His entire existence is one of misery. He is a carrion-eater and he can do nothing but "eat" the dead. He's a carp, a catfish, a scavenger. That is the purpose he serves in the Creator's creation.

That does not preclude God using him for specific purposes, but God does need to micromanage this as if what He designed will stop doing what He designed if He doesn't constantly keep an eye on it. That god is not a God. Again, I remind everyone of the dependency issue. God is not dependent on His creation and most definitely not dependent on sin. This is one of the reasons strict determinism is oxymoronic: if God MUST micromanage everything then He becomes a slave to His creation. God's plan cannot make Him dependent; it cannot reverse the issue of requirement to forcibly require God to do anything lest He and His plan fail.

Agree.

That being said, yes, it is possible God "allowed" satan to tempt Eve and then Eve tempt Adam, but what God ordained from eternity did not make Him the author of sin or do violence to the will of either of the three creatures involved, or the contingencies of their respective causalities.

Agree again. (I am not actually disagreeing with anything you have said. I am simply stating from the lens I am looking through the alternative that arises from that lens.

Very important observation because they were good, unashamed, sinless creatures living in a good, unashamed, sinless world BUT they were also corruptible good, unashamed, and sinless creatures. That is the way they were made. They were designed to be corruptible..... and perfectly so . There was, conceivably, logically, the ability to remain in the good, unashamed, sinless never-corrupted-but-still-corruptible state but they'd still need the tree of life. They'd still need Jesus.

That, too, is what we know.

Yes.

I'm not sure why Job or any of the other post-Genesis 3 persons were brought up in this thread. They are all examples of post hoc conditions. Any evidence of a "plan" they provide is that only of after-the-fact.

It wasn't brought up in the thread as an example of anything relating to the thread (which is why I said earlier in this post that what I mean by this and what I mean by everything I said so far here, would throw the OP off topic. It was brought up in context to this. Job was not the subject.

We are introduced to a being in the Garden of Eden that is evil. He was already there. And he is allowed to tempt Adam and Eve. And our first parents fell from their perfect estate. That is what we know. Though I often casually, speculatively, and not too seriously remember the first chapter of Job in this respect.

As the reason for the serpent to be in Eden---the agent of the fall. This was the point of (not Job, but what went on between God and satan) What is in the first chapter of Job but a conversation between God and satan? No doubt it wasn't the first one they had. And it is not out of the question that there was one very similar, before the creation of our world, which would explain his being in Eden, and completely disembowel the idea that God had to plan for the fall. The covenant of redemption and all its details always existed. They were not planned as one sits down to plan the route they will take to reach a destination.

The plan is not about us. We are not the focus of scripture. We are not the plan. Christ incarnate, crucified, resurrected, and ascended.... the first born of many, is the plan. Sin did not hinder that plan an iota of a smidgen.

 

[fastfredy0]

I f I understand correctly, It's like my getting into my car and turning on the ignition. The cam shafts and crank shafts turn, the electricity flows, the pistons move, and all the constituent elements of the engine work to move my vehicle down the road but I am nor "planning" any of it. It all works simply as a function of design. Yet, despite that design, the imperfections of design and manufacturer and those of the world in which it operates, the engine will eventually fail. It will wear out. Some certain imperfection may cause a misfire that breaks a microscopically defective piston rod stressed by high temperatures, enormous pressure and an actual miniature explosion.

Creation was designed to work, and it was designed to work exactly according to God's design. It was a perfect and perfectly good creation BUT by God's design there exists two types of creatures with the potential to pour sand into the otherwise perfectly designed, perfectly running engine that didn't have any manufacturing defects until a pair of fools took a hammer to it.

I would contend that things do not works "by design" in regards to doing what God ordained. This would be deism (religious belief holding that God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs through miracles or supernatural revelation). Admittedly, deism is what one assumes as we almost never see His direct hand causing anything; rather, most everything seems to work by rules that man summarizes as science.
If anything can metaphysically disconnect itself from God how can God then for know what you're going to do? Nothing has power/energy in itself. Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3, Romans 11:36, Job 34:14-15

Who controls your desires? God controlling you as a necessary consequence of your very existence. God is not just your creator but he's your sustainer (see preservation, Acts 17:28a, Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3, Romans 11:36, Job 34:14-15) and he's your sustainer at all moments so he has caused you to come into existence when He created you and He causes you to continue to exist as He sustains you. Is anybody going dare say that God is not in control of his own sustaining power. He was in control of how He created things. He was in control of precisely the way in which his creative power brought things into existence … why would it not logically follow then that God is in absolute control of His sustaining power and the way He keeps things in existence and if that truth is applicable to every particle of your existence that would include your will, your thoughts, your choices, your emotions, all of you. This points out a false assumption on the “free will” side that God can somehow create things that he does not control. Colin Sketo

Aside: I really liked your post ... alot of good content IMO

 

[fastfredy0]

Why Did God Plan for the Fall of Man?​

Yes.
Supporting syllogism:
Premise 1: Every effect has a cause. (The Law of Causality)
Premise 2: God knows all things
Premise 3: God is immutable (doesn't change His mind)
Premise 4: At one time (technically, God is outside of time) only God existed
Premise 5: God is not effect by His external creation Job 35:7-8
Premise 6: God is all wise
Conclusion: Since God is the cause of all things, knows what will be the effect of His cause, won't change His mind, that there is no other eternal being to be the initial cause and that God can't be affected by what/who He created we know God wanted the "fall" to take place.

We also know the "fall" served God's purpose as He is all wise which suggests a purpose in all He does.

• Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: 11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
• Isaiah 64:8 Yet, O Lord, You are our Father; We are the clay, and You our Potter, And we all are the work of Your hand.
• Jeremiah 18:6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?” says the Lord. “Look carefully, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel.
• Daniel 4:35 “All the inhabitants of the earth are regarded as nothing. But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth; And no one can hold back His hand Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’
• Psalm 33:10 The Lord nullifies the counsel of the nations; He makes the thoughts and plans Of the people ineffective. 11 The counsel of the Lord stands forever, The thoughts and plans of His heart through all generations.
• Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man’s mind, But it is the Lord’s purpose for him that will stand (be carried out).
• yahda, yahda ...

If you admit that God is permitting something, how can one not say God did not want it to happen? The answer is self-evident ... all things God permits are things He was willing to happen or He would have stopped it.

 

[Josheb]

If there were no fall?

Could anyone know God's mercy?
Could anyone know God's forgiveness?

Could anyone know what justice means? That God is just?

Could we understand faithfulness?

If there were no fall?

Yes. I'll explain it in another post.

Man would be a creature solely existing by instinct...

That is an assumption, an incorrect assumption dependent upon another assumption: the disobedience of one man as a necessity.

In a sense.. Adam and the woman before the fall?
If we could meet them as they were?
They would be (other than most likely pleasant) clueless and mindless.

Learn how to use periods and question marks, and proper sentence syntax because there are a lot of posts containing incomplete sentences and poorly worded questions that leave the reader not knowing whether you are asserting, inquiring, genuine or rhetorical.

Since the fall of man? The knowledge of God has grown exponentially!

You mean our knowledge of God, yes? God's omniscient knowledge has not changed at all.

Without the fall? We would be beyond dumb about God.

That's utter hogwash. God once walked with humanity in the garden. He spoke to Adam and Eve and empowered them, gifting them authority and commanding them to multiply, subdue and rule, inviting them to eat of everything he had provided, including each other (Adam and Eve, and God and man).

That is NOT "beyond dumb." That is a well-informed, healthy, and dynamic relationship in which knowing and being known by God is the norm and not something in which there is any obstacle. Remember: at a base minimum, the power of God is recognized in what has been made. That which is known about God is evident within all, for God made it evident to all. His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made. His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made (Rom. 1), and if Paul could write that about those who deny God then how much is that truth more applicable to those not estranged from Him by disobedience?

God knew what He was doing when He decreed the Fall...........

He most certainly id know what He was doing but what He was doing is not what these posts say He was doing.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Yes. I'll explain it in another post.

That is an assumption, an incorrect assumption dependent upon another assumption: the disobedience of one man as a necessity.

Learn how to use periods and question marks, and proper sentence syntax because there are a lot of posts containing incomplete sentences and poorly worded questions that leave the reader not knowing whether you are asserting, inquiring, genuine or rhetorical.

You mean our knowledge of God, yes? God's omniscient knowledge has not changed at all.

That's utter hogwash. God once walked with humanity in the garden. He spoke to Adam and Eve and empowered them, gifting them authority and commanding them to multiply, subdue and rule, inviting them to eat of everything he had provided, including each other (Adam and Eve, and God and man).

That is NOT "beyond dumb." That is a well-informed, healthy, and dynamic relationship in which knowing and being known by God is the norm and not something in which there is any obstacle. Remember: at a base minimum, the power of God is recognized in what has been made. That which is known about God is evident within all, for God made it evident to all. His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made. His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made (Rom. 1), and if Paul could write that about those who deny God then how much is that truth more applicable to those not estranged from Him by disobedience?

He most certainly id know what He was doing but what He was doing is not what these posts say He was doing.

I don't know if Genz is French or speaking from a different language than English, but it doesn't seem possible to properly communicate with him in general. I would advise you that you could be wasting your time.

It would be nice if you could explain the difference between foreknowledge and predestination too, like I asked. You can move this into a new thread in a different forum for that purpose if you would like to pursue this.

 

[Josheb]

If there were no fall?

Could anyone know God's mercy?
Could anyone know God's forgiveness?

Could anyone know what justice means? That God is just?

Could we understand faithfulness?

If there were no fall?

Great questions.

In answer to these questions I am going from the theologian, apologist, and evangelist Francis Schaeffer. His trilogy is, imo, a necessary read because it not explains how Christians in modernity arrived at the societal and cultural position(s) in which we now find ourselves (in this post-postmodern world) but it also aids in developing a Christian worldview applicable to all areas of life.

In regard to these questions as they pertain to the question of "God's plan for the fall," let's start with the beginning.

Genesis 1:1, 31
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.... God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.


Everything God made was good. It was good and there was no sin, no lawlessness, no imperfection. Sin came about through the disobedience of one man (Rom. 5:12) and that disobedience occurred at Genesis 3:6-7.

This means prior to Genesis 3:6-7 humanity was Good and sinless AND they lived as good and sinless creatures in a good and sinless world, AND they lived as good and sinless creatures in a good and sinless world as the divinely mandate and empowered stewards of all creation with the power and authority to command all the plants and animals of the garden AND the commission to multiply, subdue the entire earth and rule over it. They were good and everything they knew was good. There was nothing that was not-good and they knew no not-good.

Good

Not-good.

Simply put, everything they knew and experienced prior to Genesis 3:6 was good, known goodly as good and experienced goodly as good. There wasn't anything not-good to be known in any other way other than goodly. Theirs was a knowledge of God and creation that was entirely pure, never corrupted, not a smidgen of a drop of impurity. They knew good simply because it was good and there was nothing other than good to be known.

That all changed upon disobeying God but before that happened there was an episode that explains how Adam and Eve could have understood all things asked from their position of goodness. In their good, naked but unashamed, and sinless ontological, existential, and teleological state they came upon the creature, the serpent, who had by the time of Genesis 3:6 himself become corrupt. He was bound by his corruption, and he was bound in his corruption and in that corruption - having been cast down to earth - he was the subject of the stewards of Eden, who had been given all power and authority over all the creatures in the garden. The good and sinless Adam and Eve knew nothing experientially of not-good, nothing in their experience of the serpent's not-goodness. BUT.....


They could have recognized that which was not-good simply because it was not good.

That which is not-good is not good. They were good; the serpent was not-good, and being not-good he was not good. This is one of the most fundamental aspects of thesis and antithesis found in scripture. This, along with light/dark, and the that of being naked and unashamed versus naked and ashamed is the earliest example of thesis/antithesis asserted in the Bible. Adam and Eve could and should have recognized impurity from their pure perspective simply because it was not pure.

This is knowledge and learned by contrast, by the contrast of good versus not-good, purity versus impurity, etc. This is a knowledge and experience lost to us all because of Genesis 3:6 because at Genesis 3:6 sin entered the world and with it came death, the death of sin by which all would sin. No one since the pre-disobedient Adam and Eve (except for Jesus) has ever known a single moment of purity apart from Christ. No one has ever had a single fraction of an unadulterated thought. Adam and Eve were the only two and the last two.

SO!

The questions themselves are a reflection of the problem to be solved. These questions manifest the not-goodness evident in the mind that askes them (and we have all asked them) the not-goodness in the effort to answer them and most importantly, the not goodness inherent in their being asked.

Had Adam and Eve used their God-given faculties to know and understand goodness existentially, cognitively, relationally and behaviorally they'd have recognized the sinful creature that stood before them perverting God's word for what he was and what he was not. No complicated theological explanations were necessary or needed. The simple contrast between good and not-good was sufficient. All that followed would have had its origins in God's goodness, the goodness of His works, and their own inherent goodness. Their revulsion, contempt, and disdain for the impure would have come from goodness, not the pride and arrogance of a sinful human or any other sinful creature. Their compassion, sense of forgiveness, and horror upon learning none was offered that creature all would have come from a pure, unadulterated state, a pure unadulterated knowledge, understanding and deliberation that were all good and sinless.

Even once Eve ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree it was still possible for the still-good, the still-sinless Adam to stand before God in her stead. It would not have made any eternal difference because the loss of one of the two was still the loss of all humanity because it takes two perfect people to procreate perfect progeny, but at least Adam had the opportunity to remain good, sinless, pure, unadulterated and pay the price for another, and experience for himself all that came from such an act.

But that is not what happened. Rather than stand good and sinless they acted not-good and lawlessly. They did not rule over the earth, and the creaturely serpent, and subdue it. They did not obey God and in that moment of disobedience everything changed. Their eyes were opened. Having been good they became not-good. Having been naked and ashamed they became naked and ashamed. Having been sinless, they became sinful and sinfully enslaved, and sinfully dead. They hid.

John 3:20
For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the Light, so that his deeds will not be exposed.

All Adam had to do was walk in the light. Had he done so he'd have seen God at work. Instead, he lied. He sinned again. It was a half-truth, similar to what he'd heard from the serpent. "This woman You gave me...." completely abdicating any and all responsibility, culpability, and accountability. With those words he evidenced his estrangement from God, himself, his wife, and the creation over which just moments earlier he'd been the divinely mandated steward! He had changed ontologically, existentially, and teleologically.


The fact that this thread exists is evidence of how much all humanity has changed from good to not-good and we do not have a clue what it was one like other than the utopian fantasies of our fleshly imaginations.

 

[Josheb]

His Word does tell us.

It does, indeed, but what the word states is not what I've read in these posts, and I have explained how, when, where, and why it cannot exegetically and logically be as asserted.

The more we know His Word. The more we know the Mind of Christ.

That is not in dispute.

Knowing His Word does not boil down to a verse or two.

I completely agree. Knowing His word does not boil down to wanton copy and paste, either.

It comes after years of being taught the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation in detail.

I strongly encourage more of that be done, beginning with the scriptures and cases presented here in this thread because many of us have shared a variety of truths found in God's word. Defensiveness, contention, and divisiveness will not attain the knowledge, wisdom, and understanding brought to bear by God on this op through others He chose for that purpose. Iron sharpening iron.

Otherwise? Man is stuck with his own opinions. His own dogmas to cling to in the wind.

Yep. I have read a lot of that in defense of this op. It's the reason I and others endeavored to provide a more whole-scripture alternative that does appeal to copy-and-paste eisegesis, doesn't make God the cause of sin, doesn't make God and His plan dependent on sin, and doesn't make scripture say things it does not actually state (like two Edens).


If any specific statement I have posted that can be proven incorrect I will discuss it, and I'll do it politely, respectfully, and topically without ever insinuating any short-coming on the part of those endeavoring to help me better understand a more truthful correction.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

It does, indeed, but what the word states is not what I've read in these posts, and I have explained how, when, where, and why it cannot exegetically and logically be as asserted.

That is not in dispute.

I completely agree. Knowing His word does not boil down to wanton copy and paste, either.

I strongly encourage more of that be done, beginning with the scriptures and cases presented here in this thread because many of us have shared a variety of truths found in God's word. Defensiveness, contention, and divisiveness will not attain the knowledge, wisdom, and understanding brought to bear by God on this op through others He chose for that purpose. Iron sharpening iron.

Yep. I have read a lot of that in defense of this op. It's the reason I and others endeavored to provide a more whole-scripture alternative that does appeal to copy-and-paste eisegesis, doesn't make God the cause of sin, doesn't make God and His plan dependent on sin, and doesn't make scripture say things it does not actually state (like two Edens).


If any specific statement I have posted that can be proven incorrect I will discuss it, and I'll do it politely, respectfully, and topically without ever insinuating any short-coming on the part of those endeavoring to help me better understand a more truthful correction.

Are you going to get around to answering me here? Or should I wait?