Why Did God Plan for the Fall of Man?

[makesends]

Not to get sidetracked. But since you brought up Job.

Why did God instigate Satan to go after Job to test him?
Satan had been bypassing Job because God had been protecting Job.

Then the LORD said to Satan,
“Have you considered my servant Job?
There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.” (Job 1:8)

Why would God actually desire for Satan to put Job through the wringer?

Job went through undeserved suffering.

Why would God want that to happen?

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

Desire? Want? Where does it say God desired/wanted to do that? It is obvious God intended it, but desired it?

Why would God do it? Lot's of reasons —one of which is so that we could have this off-topic discussion! And, it is one of the great books of the Bible, demonstrating that GOD is active in what we consider misfortunes, doing what he does for larger reasons than we can know.

Job deserved, like all of us, to die. But yeah, I get your point, his suffering was not because of what he deserved, but for God's own purposes. And, in fact, that is what Job insisted, that God was doing this because God was doing this, not because Job deserved it. And God did say that Job had spoken right about him.

 

[makesends]

Aside: Similarly, I heard God lives in 11 dimensions ... what ever that implies/means.

Huh? Sounds like some off-the-wall speculation. I hope it isn't something being taught.

 

[makesends]

The "God has no succession of moments" type thinking?
My POV always gets confused in such matters.

It is our habit to think our POV has substance. We argue all day, both parties of a debate assuming the same thing, that God doesn't really see things differently.

 

[makesends]

Why is comes to sin coming into the world Calvinist's tend to change their theology and flee to "free will" as the explanation or "it's a mystery".

Calvinists, like anyone else, tend to blend with the times. It seems lately, almost orthodoxy to provide God with some excuses from the savagery of logical conclusions concerning causation. God is not tame, and he doesn't ask for us to cover for him, but we do it anyway.

 

[GeneZ]

Desire? Want? Where does it say God desired/wanted to do that? It is obvious God intended it, but desired it?

Why would God do it? Lot's of reasons —one of which is so that we could have this off-topic discussion! And, it is one of the great books of the Bible, demonstrating that GOD is active in what we consider misfortunes, doing what he does for larger reasons than we can know.

Job deserved, like all of us, to die. But yeah, I get your point, his suffering was not because of what he deserved, but for God's own purposes. And, in fact, that is what Job insisted, that God was doing this because God was doing this, not because Job deserved it. And God did say that Job had spoken right about him.

.

The Lord and Satan had an ongoing battle goin before man was created.
After man was created that conflict extended into a new phase.

Job was a player in God's court room as a witness for God.

There was a reason Satan said that Job would curse the Lord to his face.

God's challenge I will need to explain in another post. Need to stop now.

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

 

[sawdust]

Well, technically Jesus died for us while we were dead in sin. He did not die on behalf of sin; he died on behalf of sinners . The distinction between sin and sinner is sometimes very important.

Yes, of course Jesus died for sinners. He came to destroy the works of the devil. He came to bring life, and life in abundance. He came to do the will of the Father. He came to heal. He came to call sinners.

I can cite scriptures explicitly stating every one of those reasons.

Not a single one of the verses describing why Jesus came contains the word "only." Jesus did not come ONLY to heal lepers and blind folk and then leave without doing anything else. Jesus did not come ONLY to teach and then leave with a bunch of folks possessing new lessons without any redemption from sin. Jesus did not come ONLY to preach repentance and then not pay for sins we'd committed.
.
Jesus did not come for just one reason.

One of the MANY reasons Jesus came was to provide a way for flesh and blood to inherit the kingdom of God. Another of the MANY reasons Jesus cam is so that the perishable and mortal could have imperishable and immortal eternal life on the other side of the grave.




And those last two are very necessary to answering the question asked in this op because even the good and sinless Adam was mortal and needed to be made immortal. He needed the tree of life even in his good and sinless pre-disobedient state.


God did not have to have a special plan for the fall. Assuming a plan was necessary is where the onus should lie in this thread. It should not be treated as a given. Especially not because of our anthropomorphic dilemma. The answer to this op's inquiry is simple: The immutable omni-attributed sovereign Creator has a plan for creation that is not in any way affected by the fall. His plan proceeds as He has always intended because his pre-existing plan covered all possible occurrences without any need for their being contingencies. Christ came to make the corruptible and mortal incorruptible and immortal and the fact that the corruptible became corrupted did not change the pan one bit.

He didn't have to have a sacrifice to create incorruptible and immortal humans either. He had no problem creating angels that way from the start so I see no reason why He couldn't do the same for us ... but He didn't do it that way.

The scriptures may not say ONLY but nor do they ever say he died so we can be incorruptible and immortal. Assuming Christ's coming was necessary for that scenario puts the onus on you to explain why it was necessary.

Maybe if you can explain why God could/would not create humans in the same manner as angels ie. incorruptible and immortal, you might have a case.

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: God live in 11 dimensions

Huh? Sounds like some off-the-wall speculation. I hope it isn't something being taught.

Yes, some scientific speculation that there is 11 dimensions and thus God being everywhere must be in all dimensions. We have 3 dimensions that everyone is aware of ... is time a dimension for a fourth? That's all I know. Don't ask me any questions .... giggle

It is our habit to think our POV has substance. We argue all day, both parties of a debate assuming the same thing, that God doesn't really see things differently.

Complete agreement. Our POV is the one we understand best. There's the doctrine of analogy; that God has to dumb almost everything down into terms we can understand by analogy. "Free will" as defined as we independently do "X" or "Y" is the default human POV.
The problem for us is that we can't explained God's POV for the most part though we try to. Job tried to explained God's POV and got a tongue lashing. On the other hand we are supposed to study to show ourselves approved.

It seems lately, almost orthodoxy to provide God with some excuses from the savagery of logical conclusions concerning causation. God is not tame, and he doesn't ask for us to cover for him, but we do it anyway.

Agreed. God defines the rules for man. We apply man's rules to God assuming man's rules apply to Him. He is the Potter, we are ...

 

[Arial]

Your answer is temporal.

Explain what you mean when you say my answer was temporal?

Let me expand a bit on what I was getting at. Atheists love to demand an answer to the apparent problem, that if God is all-powerful, why did he not create his finished product that we will see in the end? Why not make the believers immediately complete in heaven? Why go through all these thousands (or billions) of years? Well, I believe that in one sense he did. I think he spoke the completed product into existence. And these many thousands (or billions) of years of trouble and corruption and death and vanity is how he did it.

That makes no sense whatsoever when what we are given in the scriptures is considered. I have never heard an atheist demand such an answer. It would require that they too were looking into the things of God. But that aside it has no bearing on the conversation. God spoke what came into existence into existence, and that included a human who could eat of the tree of life and not be corrupted and not be subject to death or he could eat of the forbidden tree that gave him the knowledge not only good but also evil, and in doing so be removed from the tree of life, become corrupted, and subject to certain death. Incorruptible means that it is not possible to be corrupted. Immortal means it is not able to die.

1 Cor 15:45-46 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being, the last Asa became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.

First things first. In this conversation we are talking about the natural, not the spiritual.

So in that sense he can immediately make us incorruptible and immortal, though we do not yet see it so. God's creation was not only what we consider past. It may well be that from his POV we already are what we, from our POV, are not yet. This "already but not yet" sort of thing shows up quite a lot in Scripture. But our POV is a vapor compared to God's reality.

There is a great deal of already and not yet in our salvation but you have it applied to creation. In God's POV if we take into account His omni attributes, He knows who He will redeem and when He will redeem them, and how their entire life, sin and all, He will be leading them to the Shepherd, and in the perfect time and means for them as an individual. But they are not in the Shepherd until He places them there. By grace through faith. It is then that it can be said that we occupy to places at once, one our spiritual position, and the other still in our corruptible and mortal bodies.

But that last is not applicable to mankind through Adam at the creation of our world. That is the earthly, prior to redemption.

 

[Josheb]

He didn't have to have a sacrifice to create incorruptible and immortal humans either. He had no problem creating angels that way from the start so I see no reason why He couldn't do the same for us ... but He didn't do it that way.

Three problems with that.

1. Angels are not made in God's image.
2. Angels are not offered salvation. They were definitely created perishable and mortal (otherwise the fiery lake would have no effect of satan) but those who abandoned their proer abode will not be raised incorruptible and immortal. They have been held in bonds of eternal destruction awaiting their judgment (Jude 1).
3. While your point sound logical, there isn't a single scripture to support the speculation. In other words, not matter how reasonable and rational that speculation may seem, there isn't a single verse in the entire Bible to justify it. There is, however, scripture to support what I posted. LOTS of it. I have endeavored to walk incrementally through the case I asserted, posting plainly read scripture supporting each and every point. There actually is a scripture explicitly stating humans were made perishable and mortal, AND there actually is a verse plainly stating we will be raised imperishable and immortal.

Please adjust your critique accordingly .

The scriptures may not say ONLY but nor do they ever say he died so we can be incorruptible and immortal.

That is incorrect. Paul's commentary on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 begins with

1 Corinthians 15:20-21
But the fact is, Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man death came, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.

The resurrection of the dead comes by Jesus. Jesus is the resurrection. And if you are going to suggest Jesus did NOT come in order to resurrect those who believe in him then the onus is on you to make that case.

Furthermore, to clarify the point being made about "only," there are many purposes for Jesus' coming, not just one. To unconsciously insert an "only," into any one of the verses defining why Jesus came is a mistake. I call it the problem of "onlyism," the problem of inserting an "only" where none belongs. If I ask a person "What is sin?" the likely answer will be, "Sin is lawlessness," and that would be a good, true, and correct answer BUT sin is not ONLY lawlessness. Scripture defines sin in multiple different ways and no single one example should be used to define all of sin, especially not 1 John 3:4. Likewise, if I were to ask someone, "Why did Jesus come?" one of the most likely answers will be "Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil," and that too would be a good, true, and correct answer but that verse does not state Jesus came ONLY to destroy the works of the devil. I referenced several verses that define why Jesus came.

And since the resurrection of the dead is explicitly couched by by God through the inspiration, He gave Paul to be by Jesus and Jesus alone we have scripture that says he died so we can be incorruptible and immortal.

1 Corinthians 15:42
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body...

If you can find there is another means of being resurrected into eternal life in Christ, then I am all eyes and ears. Otherwise, Jesus said, "I came so that they would have life, and have it abundantly," and the most abundant life anyone can ever have is incorruptible and immortal life. What good is it if a man gains the whole world and loses his soul?

Assuming Christ's coming was necessary for that scenario puts the onus on you to explain why it was necessary.

I have already done so. Go back and re-read the thread. Start at the beginning.

Maybe if you can explain why God could/would not create humans in the same manner as angels ie. incorruptible and immortal, you might have a case.

God did not create angels in the same manner as humans. God made humans in his image and Jesus appear in the likeness of angels, but of humans.


Your protest does not read as if you have read and understand all I've posted because all your concerns have been addressed in prior posts. Go back to Post #2 and follow what I posted from the beginning of this thread.

 

[makesends]

Explain what you mean when you say my answer was temporal?

That makes no sense whatsoever when what we are given in the scriptures is considered. I have never heard an atheist demand such an answer. It would require that they too were looking into the things of God. But that aside it has no bearing on the conversation. God spoke what came into existence into existence, and that included a human who could eat of the tree of life and not be corrupted and not be subject to death or he could eat of the forbidden tree that gave him the knowledge not only good but also evil, and in doing so be removed from the tree of life, become corrupted, and subject to certain death. Incorruptible means that it is not possible to be corrupted. Immortal means it is not able to die.

1 Cor 15:45-46 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being, the last Asa became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.

First things first. In this conversation we are talking about the natural, not the spiritual.

There is a great deal of already and not yet in our salvation but you have it applied to creation. In God's POV if we take into account His omni attributes, He knows who He will redeem and when He will redeem them, and how their entire life, sin and all, He will be leading them to the Shepherd, and in the perfect time and means for them as an individual. But they are not in the Shepherd until He places them there. By grace through faith. It is then that it can be said that we occupy to places at once, one our spiritual position, and the other still in our corruptible and mortal bodies.

But that last is not applicable to mankind through Adam at the creation of our world. That is the earthly, prior to redemption.

You have just described, by yourself, what I mean by saying your answer is temporal. I don't say that to denigrate you. I admire you and love you, but you have a fixed view of reality, that time is the only "real" at this juncture, and the eternal comes after, and even it, apparently subject to some sort of sequential passage other than merely logical sequence.

I see time as a tool God is using for the minutiae of what it took (takes) to accomplish the finished product, The Bride and Body of Christ, The Dwelling Place of God. God is not only waiting, as in the common (temporal) sense, but already knows ("experiences," in temporal lingo) the Joy of his completed work.

Time is not an absolute. The Bible describes it as a vapor, compared to what is coming. "Already but not yet" refers to both.

 

[sawdust]

Three problems with that.

1. Angels are not made in God's image.
2. Angels are not offered salvation. They were definitely created perishable and mortal (otherwise the fiery lake would have no effect of satan) but those who abandoned their proer abode will not be raised incorruptible and immortal. They have been held in bonds of eternal destruction awaiting their judgment (Jude 1).
3. While your point sound logical, there isn't a single scripture to support the speculation. In other words, not matter how reasonable and rational that speculation may seem, there isn't a single verse in the entire Bible to justify it. There is, however, scripture to support what I posted. LOTS of it. I have endeavored to walk incrementally through the case I asserted, posting plainly read scripture supporting each and every point. There actually is a scripture explicitly stating humans were made perishable and mortal, AND there actually is a verse plainly stating we will be raised imperishable and immortal.

Please adjust your critique accordingly .

Points 1 and 2 are arguments from silence. We are not told about the creation of angels or whether they were ever offered a salvation. While your argument might sound solid, it's based on speculation.

Please adjust your critique accordingly.

The resurrection of the dead comes by Jesus. Jesus is the resurrection. And if you are going to suggest Jesus did NOT come in order to resurrect those who believe in him then the onus is on you to make that case.

I wasn't suggesting the resurrection is not part of Christ's reason for coming. You seemed to be suggesting the reason for Christ's sacrifice was planned irrespective of sin and that he would have come and died anyway even if nobody sinned. I was attempting to clarify that position.

God did not create angels in the same manner as humans. God made humans in his image and Jesus appear in the likeness of angels, but of humans.

I already know God did not make humans in the same manner as angels, I have already stated such. That wasn't my question. I asked you to explain why God didn't simply create humans incorruptible and immortal from the beginning as He did with angels if the prime purpose of Christ's death was to make humans that way?

Your protest does not read as if you have read and understand all I've posted because all your concerns have been addressed in prior posts. Go back to Post #2 and follow what I posted from the beginning of this thread.

I have read enough of your posts to know I disagree with many of your base premises. I think you are simply confusing my disagreement with error.

 

[ChristB4us]

Did God want the fall to take place?
And, did it serve God's purpose to have it happen?

Imagine if man had never fallen; would someone question what was outside of God and His will at any point in time in the future?

So one may see why mankind fell so early after creation.

Young earth creationists will not be able to follow what I have to say unless they are willing to drop their bias.

The angels were originally given dominion over what we now refer to as the prehistoric earth.
Just like Adam at his creation was given dominion over our current created world, so were the angels over the prehistoric earth.

God had authority over the angels running the prehistoric world. Just as God had authority over Adam and the woman.

Some must wonder...
"Why should God want mankind to fall?"

After all.. He knew man would fall before creating him.

Revelation 13:8, tells us God already had plans to redeem man before man was created.

This may ruffle some feathers of some.

For others it will cause a sense of relief.
Relief to realize that the reason for the mess we are stuck in at present ?
Will all makes sense.

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

I fail to see bias here when I do not see the point of angels running the prehistoric world therefore there was no prehistoric world. Indeed, what were the angels running? Managing intersections of dinosaur crossings? Then you have that issue of death being in the world before Adam was created, and so how can God blame Adam by His words for how death came by sin?

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

The Bible testifies of a behemoth which is described as a dinosaur, having been created with man.

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

Disregard the footnotes by Biblical scholars, even if it is in the KJV, because the behemoth is not the alligator, nor the hippo. nor the elephant that has a tail like a cedar which is a tree.

AND only recently in the last decade, science discovered that the sex organs of the dinosaurs are internal and yet verse 17 testifies of that already.

Anyway, there is no need for the prehistoric world to be in existence before Adam was created as if God needs that "time" to foreordain everything. He can have done that before Day One of creation which signifies what? The beginning time & thus of everything else.

The evolution theory is a false science and the purpose of it is to hide the evidence of the Biblical global flood for why the world and the church is not prepared for God, that is coming at the rapture event to judge the world ( a third of the earth per Revelation 8:7 ) with fire as Jesus said He will do this in verse 49 of Luke 12:40-49 KJV for why He is warning believers to be ready as found abiding in Him or else.

May every believer trust the Lord Jesus Christ to help them discern the lies in the world, in the media, and in the church, to depart from them and be found abiding in His words in truth.

2 Timothy 4:18 And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Those wayward saints that do not look to Him to help them lay aside every weight & sin daily, may find themselves left behind to die, but their spirits will be with the Lord in heaven to await for their resurrection after the great tribulation.

I sure do need His help daily, but I rest in him to finish His work in me to His glory and yes, He has to help me do even that; resting in Him.

 

[Josheb]

Points 1 and 2 are arguments from silence. We are not told about the creation of angels or whether they were ever offered a salvation. While your argument might sound solid, it's based on speculation.

Please adjust your critique accordingly.

Once again that is incorrect.

Hebrews 1:5
For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?

Christ, the only monogenes sarx egenetos (unbegotten son made flesh) is the first born of the many adopted ones that came later.

Yours is the argument "angels may also be made in God's image because no scripture says otherwise." That is the argument from silence that is fallacious. I have scripture plainly stating humans were made in God's image during creation when the angelic host were also made. I have scripture stating salvation is offered to humans. I have scripture stating angels who did not keep their proper abode are held in bondage for judgment.

You?

Amidst the protests there is no scripture.

I wasn't suggesting the resurrection is not part of Christ's reason for coming.

Then say it: The resurrection of humans is one of the reasons Jesus came to earth.

You seemed to be suggesting the reason for Christ's sacrifice was planned irrespective of sin and that he would have come and died anyway even if nobody sinned. I was attempting to clarify that position.

Never said any such thing. What I did say is the occurrence of sin does not adversely affect God pre-existing plan or cause Him to have to change His plan, or develop any additional contingencies. This op asserts God HAD to have a plan specifically FOR sin and then refuses to address the problem of the ensuing dependency on sin for that plan to succeed. I am suggesting the premise flawed at a presuppositional level.

So re-read what I posted and please do not "suggest" I'm saying things I did not say and have bluntly refuted.

I asked you to explain why God didn't simply create humans incorruptible and immortal from the beginning...

That question is outside the domain of this op and since scripture is silent on the subject any answer would be speculation.

as He did with angels...

The angels were made corruptible and mortal. Satan and the other angels would never have "fallen" or disobeyed God were the incorruptible. Tossing Satan into the fiery lake would have no effect on him if he were not mortal. If death is destroyed when it is tossed into the fiery lake then so too is everything else, including satan and his cohort.

I have read enough of your posts to know I disagree with many of your base premises. I think you are simply confusing my disagreement with error.

Well, so far, I see little evidence my "base premises" were correctly understood, and I read a lot of accusations I don't have any scripture when that is not the case, and its' the dissent that's lacking scripture.


How do you get around the problem of God and His plan being dependent on sin, the Law Maker dependent on lawlessness, if His plan is to succeed?

 

[makesends]

I already know God did not make humans in the same manner as angels, I have already stated such. That wasn't my question. I asked you to explain why God didn't simply create humans incorruptible and immortal from the beginning as He did with angels if the prime purpose of Christ's death was to make humans that way?

Consider that from God's POV, there is no difference. This trouble we have gone through these many years is how it came about. "Already" (the firm established fact), and "not yet" (the ongoing work.)

 

[sawdust]

Hebrews 1:5
For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?

Christ, the only monogenes sarx egenetos (unbegotten son made flesh) is the first born of the many adopted ones that came later.

Yours is the argument "angels may also be made in God's image because no scripture says otherwise." That is the argument from silence that is fallacious. I have scripture plainly stating humans were made in God's image during creation when the angelic host were also made. I have scripture stating salvation is offered to humans. I have scripture stating angels who did not keep their proper abode are held in bondage for judgment.

You?

Amidst the protests there is no scripture.

That has nothing to do with the way angels are created but an argument on the uniqueness of Christ proving He is not an angel and that He is pre-eminent among creation. You wouldn't argue our adoption means we are created in the same vein as Christ because of this passage. Nor does any of it prove angels were not made in God's image or that salvation was not offered to them that fell. Do you assume mercy was never extended to those who were misled by Lucifer? The scriptures don't overly concern themselves with detailing angels. Your argument that angels are not created in the image of God because Christ is begotten is equally fallacious.

And amid your protests is scripture out of context.

Never said any such thing. What I did say is the occurrence of sin does not adversely affect God pre-existing plan or cause Him to have to change His plan, or develop any additional contingencies. This op asserts God HAD to have a plan specifically FOR sin and then refuses to address the problem of the ensuing dependency on sin for that plan to succeed. I am suggesting the premise flawed at a presuppositional level.

Which presupposes if sin never occurred Christ still would have died on the Cross. I am trying to ascertain if this is in fact what you believe. I am not trying to argue the OP with you. I am trying to clarify your position on what you have declared.

Well, so far, I see little evidence my "base premises" were correctly understood, and I read a lot of accusations I don't have any scripture when that is not the case, and its' the dissent that's lacking scripture.

I have only asked you to clarify on one premise and have not made any "accusations". This is not about me so please stick to clarifying your position as I have asked of you.

Herein is the problem I see based on your explanation. You see humans as being made corruptible and mortal and God's plan of Christ's sacrifice and resurrection as the solution to creating humans incorruptible and immortal. While at the same time you say angels, also being created corruptible and mortal, but God has no plan whatsoever for them even though they end up equally incorruptible and immortal.

How do you get around the problem of God and His plan being dependent on sin, the Law Maker dependent on lawlessness, if His plan is to succeed?

I get around it by seeing God's plan isn't for Himself but for His creation. He is the pre-eminent Servant King. He doesn't make plans for Himself (God has no need for anything) but He plans for His creation and for His plan to succeed, it must fit His creation. God is "Success" personified so doesn't need any plan to make Himself more successful.

 

[sawdust]

Consider that from God's POV, there is no difference. This trouble we have gone through these many years is how it came about. "Already" (the firm established fact), and "not yet" (the ongoing work.)

No difference between what? Angels and humans? I'm not sure what you're saying.

I think scripture tells us there is not as much difference as we might think.

Psalm 8:5
For You have made him (humanity) a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor.

 

[makesends]

No difference between what? Angels and humans? I'm not sure what you're saying.

I think scripture tells us there is not as much difference as we might think.

Psalm 8:5
For You have made him (humanity) a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor.

No difference in creating the finished product vs creating this whole temporal universe in which we lived and Christ died.

 

[GeneZ]

No difference in creating the finished product vs creating this whole temporal universe in which we lived and Christ died.

The human soul once created is not temporal. Only the life that soul experiences on earth is temporal, as well as the body.

 

[makesends]

The human soul once created is not temporal. Only the life that soul experiences on earth is temporal, as well as the body.

And so....?

 

[Josheb]

That has nothing to do with the way angels are created but an argument on the uniqueness of Christ proving He is not an angel and that He is pre-eminent among creation.

lol.

Think it through. Christ is not an angel, and angels are not Christ. You're still dodging the facts in evidence: I can actually provide a pile of scripture for the views expressed and you either cannot or have not. Were the two arguments listed side by side one column would include a list of assertions, most of which come accompanied with explicit statements in scripture (not eisegetically inferred interpretations of scripture), and on the other side a dissent lacking scripture.

• I can list and have listed scriptures stating Adam was created good, unashamed, and sinless.
• I can list and have listed scriptures providing a timeline for the fall of both angels and humans.
• I can list and have listed scriptures citing the many reasons or purposes for Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and ascension.
• I can list and have listed scriptures indicating sin is not the only reason for Jesus' incarnation.
• I can list and have listed scriptures stating humans are created in God's image (twice: once in creation and again in Christ).
• I can list and have listed scriptures stating some humans are raised incorruptible and immortal.
• I can list and have listed scriptures stating the end of the angels who sinned is death, not incorruptible life eternal.
• I have argued for God's omni-attributes, sovereignty, and immutability using these where others have argued positions logically dictating a God who has to make contingency plans and is not immutable.

As far as I have read in the entire thread, I'm the only one addressing the problem of God's dependency on sin if He his only plan for creation is addressing the fall of humanity. As far as I can see, there's not only a huge silence in response to this, but there's also a blind spot that hasn't recognized the problem. There is, likewise, a significant lack of scripture in your dissent and a recurring refusal to acknowledge my ability to meet your challenges with scripture.

Any objective comparison between my case and yours objectively shows what I have posted is comparatively more scriptural, more whole-scripture and less eisegetically selective, more exegetically sound, and more logically rational. There's also something else going on here because in response to your inquiries I have provided valid replies and not a single one of them have been acknowledged. I cannot walk with you through the points of agreement because you've refused to say, "Ah, yeah, that's correct. I can see that." So here's a test:



Say it: Jesus did come to raise some incorruptible and immortal.


Just say it.

If refusing to do so, then ask yourself why I would bother to trade posts who will not acknowledge a truth that simple preferring a scriptureless dissent.




Go back through the case I have presented and make a list of things with which you agree. Then post that list. Stop making this all about points of disagreement and build through consensus. Make the list. Witchcraft, sorcery, immorality are easy to see. The lesser works of the flesh get overlooked.....

Galatians 5:19-21 ESV
Now the works of the flesh are evident: .....enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions............ and things like these.

It's any easy route, but according to scripture, those who post only strife, disputes, rivalry, dissensions, division.... are working from the flesh. The solution is easy: affirm scripture.

So, say it: Jesus did come to raise some incorruptible and immortal.

...and make the list of points where we have agreement. Give me a reason to continue with you.


.