Why Did God Plan for the Fall of Man?

[Josheb]

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.

Perhaps. but I will work hard within myself not to assume problems within another that I cannot know. It is my understanding he is in the UK (addendum: his profile says Georgia). I suspect the problem is he's using a tablet or cell. Txt in those devices does not always transfer well in cyberspace.

It would be nice if you could explain the difference between foreknowledge and predestination too,...

Why? If those terms are concerns with salvation then...

How is soteriological foreknowledge and soteriological predestination relevant to God's plan for the fall?

I believe I have already answered much of that inquiry with my summary alternative: God's plan is not specific to the occurrence of sin, Jesus did not come solely to address sin and that his life, death, and resurrection covers that problem would have happened no matter how or why else he came simply because he is ontologically, not just teleologically, the resurrection and the life by whom alone anyone can come to God.

....like I asked.

I did not notice the request.

You can move this into a new thread in a different forum for that purpose if you would like to pursue this.

I could, or you could start a new thread of your own and let me know it's up. It's completely within the rules to quote another as long as the quote is not misrepresentative, the quote is linked to the source and the source identified. However, I am happy to answer the question if the relevance to this op is articulated.

 

[CrowCross]

I agree. However, I don't think the idea that God says it was very good means there was no evil, even then. His objective in creating —Heaven, and God's end for all things— is also VERY GOOD, but it comes about through, among other things, sin.

I disagree. At the time things were very good, I see no sin at that point.

 

[CrowCross]

No, I am NOT claiming sinless (unfallen) angels cannot visit earth in an unfallen state.

Not even remotely implying such a premise and have no idea how that question was prompted from the sentence quoted, especially since I have already stated, "Those who did not fall are our ministering spirits." Angels are sent to provide service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation (Heb. 1:14). The witness of verses like Genesis 3:24 and 19:15-16, Judges 6:22, 2 Kings 6:16, Psalms 34:7 and 91:11, Daniel 6:22, Matthew 4:11, Luke 1:34 and 2:15, and many more inform us "unfallen" angels come to earth many times for many reasons. There are angels all around us.

Can't you see them?

I can see where the fallen angels...the "watchers" married the daughters of men.

 

[Josheb]

I would contend that things do not works "by design" in regards to doing what God ordained.

If God makes it deadly to sin and those who sin die, then that death is the cause-and-effect of sin that God design and no one can change that or escape it. All the ensuing particulars do not change these facts. If I steal cookies and someone else views pornography, and Hitler kills millions those are simply variations on a common theme; differences of magnitude, not kind.

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).

I did not once argue against God intervening in human affairs. My posts are filled with multiple examples of Him doing so.

So I do not know why posters imagine me to say or suggest things c never posted and always evidenced against, but I don't trade posts with those who continue to do so when the posts prove criticism unfounded. I am fully aware what Deism teaches and I explicitly stated I was NOT espousing a Blind Watchmaker Deism.

So, stow that cr@p and please do not put it on my posts again.

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

Thanks.

Let's go back to the premise first stated...

I would contend that things do not works "by design" in regards to doing what God ordained.

Feel free to correct me if I misunderstand, but this implies God ordains without design. It also implies any design that God does assert creating creation is a design that does not function unless He is meticulously maintaining every minute detail, in which case.... why design anything, or have any design? Why plan anything?

Can you see the premise "things do not work by design" is logically untenable? Can you see that a complete disparity, a never-overlapping view between design and ordaining is also logically untenable, especially given certain scriptures reporting God's will and purpose being known beforehand?

 

[Josheb]

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

Please read the Forum Rules.

Note Rule #3 requires expects topical discourse. I offered to options: either explain how the inquiry is topically relevant to this op or start a new thread and invite me to reply. Until that happens, I will not break Rule 3; I will not collaborate with digression. I am not going to collaborate with hijacking GeneZ's thread irrelevantly. So, either explain the relevance of your inquiry or wait because I'm not going to answer questions that are not op-relevant. Until one of the two options happens you'll have to wait.

 

[Josheb]

I can see where the fallen angels...the "watchers" married the daughters of men.

Relevance?

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Please read the Forum Rules.

Note Rule #3 requires expects topical discourse. I offered to options: either explain how the inquiry is topically relevant to this op or start a new thread and invite me to reply. Until that happens, I will not break Rule 3; I will not collaborate with digression. I am not going to collaborate with hijacking GeneZ's thread irrelevantly. So, either explain the relevance of your inquiry or wait because I'm not going to answer questions that are not op-relevant. Until one of the two options happens you'll have to wait.

[edit by mod]

In any case, you answered me, but you didn't address my points directly [edit by mod]

 

[GeneZ]

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.

Its called Ellipsis.

The Bible in the NT Greek has a good many examples of ellipsis. Peter's epistles have many.
Paul when excited wrote elliptical at times.

Ellipsis requires that the reader has to know the context well enough to fill in the blanks.

 

[GeneZ]

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.

Since someone refused to answer you I will give it a try.

Foreknowledge is simply God having the omniscience to see all of the possible future and able to determine what will ultimately take place.

Predestination is God seeing all the possible future and then deciding how He wills an aspect of the future to turn out.

 

[brightfame52]

Since someone refused to answer you I will give it a try.

Foreknowledge is simply God having the omniscience to see all of the possible future and able to determine what will ultimately take place.

Predestination is God seeing all the possible future and then deciding how He wills an aspect of the future to turn out.

Since you say it like that, God must not be the first cause of what He sees in the future, is that right ?

 

[fastfredy0]

I did not once argue against God intervening in human affairs. My posts are filled with multiple examples of Him doing so.

No one to my knowledge believes God doesn't intervene. My point is God is always intervening.

So I do not know why posters imagine me to say or suggest things c never posted and always evidenced against, but I don't trade posts with those who continue to do so when the posts prove criticism unfounded.

I think I may have misinterpreted you or your statement may have been ambiguous. If you don't wish to trade posts, that's fine.

I am fully aware what Deism teaches and I explicitly stated I was NOT espousing a Blind Watchmaker Deism.

My interpretation of your post indicated DEISM. Your analogy was man designing a car and it eventually goes wrong. That's deism IMO. Man designs a car and it runs on its own after that. I propose God makes a car and is constantly causing every molecule of the car to work according to God's desire at any time ... so if God decides the car can work without an engine (a miracle so to speak), it does so.

So, stow that cr@p and please do not put it on my posts again.

Ad hominem .... *yawn*

Hmmm, I see you're not as upset with me as I continue to read.

Re: I said: I would contend that things do not works "by design" in regards to doing what God ordained.

Feel free to correct me if I misunderstand

I wish you would allow me the same liberty to be corrected if I misunderstand instead of assuming I am purposely send CR?P. *giggle/sigh*

It also implies any design that God does assert creating creation is a design that does not function unless He is meticulously maintaining every minute detail, in which case.... why design anything, or have any design? Why plan anything?

Agreed ... note the ''maintaining of the design as opposed to "design only" which I interpret as deism and that was my interpretation of your previous post; that you were referring to "design only" IMO. Apparently I interpreted incorrectly.

Can you see the premise "things do not work by design" is logically untenable? Can you see that a complete disparity, a never-overlapping view between design and ordaining is also logically untenable, especially given certain scriptures reporting God's will and purpose being known beforehand?

Yes I agree. Things do not work by design. Things work by someone insuring thing work as designed. To work by design is deism; that the thing works on its own after God get it going.
I would need a definition of "design" and "ordain" to comment. Both words are synonyms for "plan" in my mind.

Hey, I was not trying to give you a difficult time. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you said initially. From the statements you just made I think we may be in agreement; we just had a miscommunication.

I believe that every molecule in the universe would cease to exist if God somehow ceased to exist. I believe the properties of every molecule in the universe only continue to act as they do because God causes it to be so. I.E. all matter attracts other matter (Gravity) because God, nanosecond to nanosecond, is causing it continue. I deny deism in any form. If I mistakenly thought your statements were a support of deism and they were not ... so be it. I do my best. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you accidently wrote something that implies support of deism. Whatever.

Anyways, I do like your posts still (though not really in love with this particular conversion *giggle*) ... I'll tend to leave you alone in the future. Not the idea of a forum, but I can see I've upset you. Have a good one. Apologies if I accidently misunderstood you again.

Aside: I'm on a ship on the ocean and my internet "sucks".

 

[sawdust]

It is not the universe God manifested.

So we're not living in a universe God decreed?

 

[makesends]

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

Authoring sin: Either creating it, (but it is not a created thing), or himself rebelling against God, as the first sinner —which is absurd.

Satan is the author of sin, as the first sinner, and he is owner of his own deeds, as are we all, but for the grace of God.

And there we can see one delineation of the meaning or use of, "sin". We all do as we wish, if we can; we do as we choose, and we choose according to our inclinations, if only what we are inclined to do for that moment of decision. We will to do. Volition. And God does not work against that; but rather, by his ordaining, has established it; thus, his ordaining does no violence to human volition.

Else we too are somehow little first causes, which is also absurd, since there can be only one first cause.

 

[sawdust]

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.

True but if you had bug killer in your shed then it would have bearing.

 

[sawdust]

Ah! I see. Do you know now the mind of God

No but I do have the mind of Christ

 

[fastfredy0]

Authoring sin: Either creating it, (but it is not a created thing), or himself rebelling against God, as the first sinner —which is absurd.

Gee... that's not much of a definition. The first part is not possible and therefore of no consequence and the second part is not logically possible as God is immutable. That doesn't leave us with much.
It was an answer though ..

Got to type fast... on a ship with lousy internet.

 

[fastfredy0]

Satan is the author of sin, as the first sinner, and he is owner of his own deeds, as are we all, but for the grace of God.

Hmmm.... seems you are saying anyone that sins is "the author of sin".

Author: The writer of a book, article, or other text.

Who wrote the book relating everything before it ever happened? Satan?

And there we can see one delineation of the meaning or use of, "sin". We all do as we wish, if we can; we do as we choose, and we choose according to our inclinations, if only what we are inclined to do for that moment of decision. We will to do. Volition. And God does not work against that; but rather, by his ordaining, has established it; thus, his ordaining does no violence to human volition.

Else we too are somehow little first causes, which is also absurd, since there can be only one first cause.

Agreed. Who gave us all our inclinations that cause us to sin?

 

[sawdust]

Since someone refused to answer you I will give it a try.

Foreknowledge is simply God having the omniscience to see all of the possible future and able to determine what will ultimately take place.

Predestination is God seeing all the possible future and then deciding how He wills an aspect of the future to turn out.

I'm wondering if in your definition foreknowledge should only be applied to believers. iow taking your statement I would add on the end "for the believer". I say this because predestination is based on God's foreknowledge and predestination is only applied to believers.

What say you?

 

[makesends]

I propose God makes a car and is constantly causing every molecule of the car to work according to God's desire at any time

Exactly. THAT is the essence of God's IMMANENCE. I'm curious how @Josheb sees that attribute.

I would not be very surprised, though very pleased, to find out that the smallest particle or base essence of matter and energy is in fact, something very physical of God, such as, for example, the Love of God. That would answer a whole LOT of questions.

 

[makesends]

Hmmm.... seems you are saying anyone that sins is "the author of sin".

Author: The writer of a book, article, or other text.

Who wrote the book relating everything before it ever happened? Satan?

Agreed. Who gave us all our inclinations that cause us to sin?

We did, according to James: “Each one is tempted when, by this own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then after desire has conceived it gives birth to sin." Therefore, all the warnings and instructions concerning training the body and mind to live holy lives.

But I think maybe you mean, who caused this whole scenario to be? God did.