Why Did God Plan for the Fall of Man?

[Josheb]

Yes for creation not for Himself. Not hard to understand.

No.

God could have made a purposeless creation. It would have been outside His character to do so, but He could have. He did not NEED to have a plan.

So you think God allows things into His creation having no purpose?

And this is where I send you back to what has already posted because you're now asking a question I have already answered and answered in the negative. Of course God created creation with a purpose, but He did not NEED to do so, and His purpose was not dependent on the existence of sin for creation's intended purpose to be realized.

He let's any old thing in and just wings it does He?

Your the one doing all the mumbling and grumbling because posters aren't sticking to the topic. If you don't like it just go somewhere else and the rest of us won't have to put up with your whining.

That's obnoxious off-topic derision.

Have you got anything op-relevant to post?

 

[Josheb]

When I started with my pastor's teachings it forced me to acquire a small personal library, and to visit campus libraries of two Bible colleges, not to mention perusing as many shelves I found at bookstores in my travels.

What struck me hard was the following.

How so many reference books were in agreement with what I was taught. The trouble I had prior, was that the reference books were so dry and boring in themselves. Not able to keep my attention. But when challenged to prove all things? They became alive and exciting.

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

1 Thessalonians 5:21​

That lasted me for about five years until I finally learned I could trust the pastor I decided to learn from.
Not to mention, that happened after graduating three years of Bible college, having graduated with honors.

grace and peace ......

What about the pastors, teachers, authors, Bible college and seminary graduates, and theologians here? Do you learn from them and their libraries?

Would you mind naming ten teachers or their books from which you have learned? Thx

 

[sawdust]

God could have made a purposeless creation. It would have been outside His character to do so, but He could have. He did not NEED to have a plan.

What the... ??? Are you kidding? If it was outside of His character to do something then there is no way He would or could have done it. He cannot deny Himself.

That's obnoxious off-topic derision.

No, that's just the facts.

 

[Josheb]

What the... ??? Are you kidding? If it was outside of His character to do something then there is no way He would or could have done it. He cannot deny Himself.

Doing something outside His character is not always denying Himself. You've argued a false dichotomy. Isaiah 45 tells us God creates evil, yet He is not evil. In an already evil-filled world He creates evil - despite it being outside His character - and He does not deny Himself when He does so.

God is a purposeful God who bears fruit, but that does not mean He could not have created a purposeless creation. This gets back to the fundamental problem with this op = the minute restrictions are laid upon God He ceases to be omni-attributed. One or more of His attributes is compromised. These limitations are usually due to some anthropomorphization whereby we think God thinks the way we think. In this op the premise God had to have a plan is the error. God does not have to have a plan for sin. He does not need to have a plan specifically for satan's sin or Adam's. It is quite reasonable and rational for God to have a plan that covers all possible occurrences and their contingencies before they ever happened that does not require a special feature dedicated to any particular, odd occurrence (like sin). More and more problems ensue, and the end is a patchwork theology. If someone were to ask, "What was God's plan in case man did not fall?" is greeted with incredulity, resistance, and non-sequitur: "But God knew man would fall!"

That is not an answer to the question asked.

Did God not have a plan for man's not-fall? What? Josh, you're nuts. Yes, maybe, but my being nuts has nothing to do with the fact the question asked is not being answered. It's important because most here agree God is not the author or cause of sin. God did not force satan to sin. God did not force Adam to sin. It was correctly observed early in the thread satan sinned first, before Adam. Both satan and Adam sinned after the first six days of creation. What was God's plan for creation in the days between His good creation and the day sin entered creation? No matter how long or how short the time between Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 3:7 may have been..... did God not have a plan for man not-falling? If the answer is, "No," then a purposeless God has been asserted. God has no plan for sinlessness but He does have a plan for sin. God has no plan for not-fall of man, but God does have a plan for the fall.

So we see this dedicated plan idea quickly becomes self-indicting. God must have two plans, not just one. Maybe He's got three plans or four plans, one plan for the angels that did not fall, one plan for the angels He knows will fall, one plan for the humans before they fall, one plan for the humans that do fall. And, of course, we already know He has a plan for the one man who would not fall, and a plan for the humans who would fall but also believe in Christ. That's six plans!

That's not very efficient for an all-knowing and all-powerful God. He's trying to patchwork a variety of things for which He MUST plan.

No, that's just the facts.

Got anything op-relevant to post?

 

[Arial]

Isaiah 45 tells us God creates evil, yet He is not evil. In an already evil-filled world He creates evil - despite it being outside His character - and He does not deny Himself when He does so.

As far as I know it is only the KJV that translates that as God creating evil. Rather, He forms light and creates darkness. He creates calamity---most often as judgment. So contend that evil is not a creation any more than sin is a creation. It is simply the other side of the coin. There is no righteousness unless there is something that is sin. No evil unless there is something that is not evil.

 

[Josheb]

As far as I know it is only the KJV that translates that as God creating evil. Rather, He forms light and creates darkness. He creates calamity---most often as judgment. So contend that evil is not a creation any more than sin is a creation. It is simply the other side of the coin. There is no righteousness unless there is something that is sin. No evil unless there is something that is not evil.

I agree, but the base has to be covered for the naysayers who will use verses like that to argue the dissent I just preemptively covered.

This is important because Genesis 1:31 tells us everything God made was very good. That means there was no calamity, or at least no moral calamity. The essence of this op is that God had a plan specifically for a moral calamity (two or more, in fact) that He didn't cause, and He MUST have had a plan (or two or more) specifically for that moral calamity because it had to be addressed. God had to have a specific plan for an immoral action He did not make. Creation forced God, not the other way around. Creatures made it necessary for the Creator to act.

That's the foundation upon which this op is built.


There are huge problems with this foundation (scripturally, logically, theologically, etc.).

 

[Josheb]

So contend that evil is not a creation any more than sin is a creation.

Let's clarify this point because God did not create evil and God did not create sin, but sin and evil are in fact creations - creations of satan and then Adam (and every human subsequent to A&E, except for Jesus).

In Genesis 1:31 God looked on all that he had made and He declared it "very good." Since both lucifer/satan, and Adam and Eve were parts of that six-day creation (whether one is an early-earth or not makes no difference) they were all three good. Genesis 2:25 states Adam and Eve were naked, but they were not ashamed. Therefore, the Adam and Eve God originally created were good and unashamed. Romans 5:12 tells us sin entered the world through one man's disobedience, so there was no sin in the world prior to Adam's act of disobedience, which scripture tells us occurred at Genesis 3:6-7. Therefore, Adam and Eve were

1. Good
2. Unashamed
3. Sinless

That all changed at Genesis 3:6-7. That specific moment is the specific concern of this op, the question to be answered is, "Why did God plan for the fall of man?" Given what I just posted, the question could be re-worded to ask, "Why did God plan for Genesis 3:6-7 and its aftermath?"

God planned for it.

Not God planned for it.

Everything changes at Genesis 3:6-7. Humanity went from being good to not-good, from being unashamed to being ashamed, and being sinless to being sinful. God did not make sin, but there it is: humanity is sinful, and the world has become adulterated by its entrance. As I just got done summarizing in the thread on God's omniscience, sin is a thing. It is the antithesis of thesis. God made good, sin is not-good. God made the world lawful; sin is lawlessness. After Genesis 3:7 Adam and Eve (and the rest of humanity) are

1. Not-good
2. Ashamed
3. Sinful

That is not how God made them. God's creation has changed, and it has not changed because He made it change, because He forced it to change.

Much of this applies to lucifer/satan, too. Before Eve and then Adam disobeyed God, lucifer/satan had done so. He did so after the six days of creation, and we know this because God would not have called sin "very good." Isaiah 5 tells us God abhors those who call good evil and evil good. Satan sinned first and thereby became sinful but, somehow, sin did not enter the world with his presence in the garden. Sin did not enter the world until Adam disobeyed God. Now God has two kinds of sinful creatures: 1) angels who did not keep their proper abode, and 2) humans who disobeyed Him. As a consequence much of creation has changed.

It is worth noting at this point the Bible does not use the word "evil" for any of this except in describing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Six chapters of human history transpire before we read the word "evil" being used. It is first used in chapter 6 when God looks down on the world just before choosing Noah and flooding the world.


God made the world full of unrealized potential, or as I like to say, full of unrealized dialectic potential. Thesis and antithesis. God made good, but God also made it possible for not-good to ensue AND He made that potential and called it good!!!!! The prospect, possibility, or potential was good . As I covered several times previously in this thread, God made Adam and Eve not-corrupted, but He also made them corruptible AND He called that condition good . God made the world sinless but God also made the world capable of become adulterated by sin AND He called that condition good.

• Not-corrupt is good.
• Corruptible is good.
• Corrupted is not-good.

• Sinless is good.
• Potentially sinful is good.
• Sinful is not-good, it is not good, it is bad.

Conditions that God did not make have been made. And they are very real. Sin is not a physical thing from which a slice can be taken and examined under a microscope, but neither are love, patience, kindness, mercy, justice, etc. We do not want to reify sin but either do we want to deny its existence just because it is not material. Sin/evil is not a Creator-created condition, but in this world it is a man-made one.


And this asserts God had a plan for it, God had to have a plan for it, and the necessity of such a plan is a must. I asked just to make sure.

 

[Arial]

I agree, but the base has to be covered for the naysayers who will use verses like that to argue the dissent I just preemptively covered.

This is important because Genesis 1:31 tells us everything God made was very good. That means there was no calamity, or at least no moral calamity. The essence of this op is that God had a plan specifically for a moral calamity (two or more, in fact) that He didn't cause, and He MUST have had a plan (or two or more) specifically for that moral calamity because it had to be addressed. God had to have a specific plan for an immoral action He did not make. Creation forced God, not the other way around. Creatures made it necessary for the Creator to act.

That's the foundation upon which this op is built.


There are huge problems with this foundation (scripturally, logically, theologically, etc.).

I notice a problem in the foundation you present also. God does not have to make a plan for anything. He governs all things.

 

[Josheb]

I notice a problem in the foundation you present also. God does not have to make a plan for anything. He governs all things.

Then no problem is noticed because I have often stated God does not have to make a plan. Just look at the top of this page at the opening statements of Post #541.

God could have made a purposeless creation. It would have been outside His character to do so, but He could have. He did not NEED to have a plan.

He has one, but He did not NEED to do so.

 

[Arial]

Let's clarify this point because God did not create evil and God did not create sin, but sin and evil are in fact creations - creations of satan and then Adam (and every human subsequent to A&E, except for Jesus).

Satan did evil. He did not create it. There is only one Creator who creates out of nothing. Satan had the capacity to rebel against God, and He did, and doing so would be evil because God is good.

In Genesis 1:31 God looked on all that he had made and He declared it "very good." Since both lucifer/satan, and Adam and Eve were parts of that six-day creation (whether one is an early-earth or not makes no difference) they were all three good.

This is a presupposition for which you give no actual support that will stand against all opposition. In a straightforward reading of those scriptures the serpent was already in the Garden of Eden. We have no record of when he was created. God declared what He created in those days good. There was also a tree in that Garden that had the fruit of the knowledge of evil as well as good. For all we know, Satan, when he was cast out of heaven was cast into earth that existed as Gen 1 tells us. God made the earth habitable and pleasing and perfect for the creation of man who would dwell on it and have dominion over it. And it was what was in the Garden, not what was outside of it, that he was given dominion over.

For all we know it was all about a challenge by satan and for His own glory everything went the way it did and Satan was defeated once and forever through the redemption of these corruptible humans who became corrupted, and through their redemption all of creation---the one yet to come and the end of days. And Satan and evil are forever destroyed permanently. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is gone, and what remains is the tree of life and living water.

I do not present that as any sort of truth, for neither I nor anyone else knows what God has hidden from us. I simply present it to show that you don't know anymore that the rest of us. Other theories can be presented that are just as unverifiable as the one you give. Yet we continue to believe we can peer into the mind of God, and the secret things of God, and arrive at an absolute---and present those theories as knowable facts.

Truly, we need all of us to be more humble and careful when doing that with the secret things of God. Calvin has even stated in the Institutes that we have no business looking into those things, and I tend to agree.

 

[ChristB4us]

Scripture interprets scripture. It's a basic rule of interpretation. The earth ended up tohu and bohu in Jeremiah because of the Lord's fierce anger. To turn around and say it was that way in Genesis because that is the way the Lord creates things is to ignore a basic rule of interpretation.

In Jeremiah 4:23 in the context of the message, it waws explained why God was angry for issuing judgment the way that He did.

To apply the same meaning of Jeremiah 4:23 to Genesis 1:2 without explaining why for His judgment is ignoring the basic rule of interpretation. You said it;

I was referring to the Lord through the prophet Jeremiah showed you that "tohu and bohu" is the result of judgement

Look at the Greek word "pneuma" for spirit as it does not always refer to the Holy Spirit.

Textus Receptus Greek Text King James Bible With Strongs Dictionary

from pnew - pneo 4154; a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively, a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, demon, or (divine) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit:--ghost, life, spirit(-ual, -ually), mind. Compare yuch - psuche 5590.

If anyone apply all those definitions to be the same as the Holy Spirit, they would be ignoring the basic rule of interpretation.

So how does one define pneuma? By the meaning in the context of the message being given.

How does one define "tohu and bohu"? Is It the result of judgement? No, because God did not say why for that judgment to be apparent and so those words cannot be defined as it was in Jeremiah 4:23 when the context of the message has the earth as we know it as non-existent. Look at what other words that Strong's Concordance defined "tohu" as.

"from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain:--confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness."

Look at what bohu is defined as;

"from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:--emptiness, void."

When we used void today, it is to remove something, but void back then means non-existent in regards to the earth on day 1.

YOU CANNOT apply all the definitions to Genesis 1:2 as if it is the same message from Jeremiah 4:23 or vise versa.

The earth did not exist on day 1. All that was there was water.

Day two of the dividing of the water, creating one firmament from the other firmament was the beginning of the creation of the earth that second day as a water planet with an upper atmosphere; hence the first heaven. That was why God did not say it was good because He was not done creating the earth until day 3.

Then God created the universe on day 4 and filled in the gaps from the sources of their lights with their lights to be shining on the earth that day for the purpose of signs, times, and seasons.

There was no heaven nor earth that first day. All that was created that day was the "beginning" by that evening and morning that first day.

How this creation account ended in Genesis 2:1-2 should be telling on how God created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1 for how God did everything to rest on the literal 7th day from creation week.

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 2:1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

It is the context of this message is why tohu and bohu of Jeremiah 4:23 cannot be applied to Genesis 1:2.

He gave a command to the light on the first day. There are no "creative" words used. It is a command to that which already exists. God is light. He brought forth that light "in the beginning" when he created the heavens and earth in Gen.1:1

On the first day He called the light good, not the earth. The earth is not called good until the third day when He has finished restoring it to the place where it could sustain life which He then proceeded to command to bring forth vegetation. Again note, no creative words used. The seeds were already present in the ground waiting to come forth.

Your problem is that you keep seeing the meaning of the words tohu & bohu in Jeremiah 4:23 as meaning the same thing in Genesis 1:2 and began applying it at the expense of what the other words are saying in the context of that message in Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:1-3 for how God created the heavens and the earth when they were non-existent; a vacuity... empty...nothing.. without any form whatsoever.

This is where @GeneZ 's Professor of the ancient language has not realized & has failed according to his educational training. This is why we are to prove all things with the wisdom from the Lord.

 

[ChristB4us]

No-one said that teachers, even those truly appointed by God, are infallible that was your bias being projected onto us. All we were arguing is the need for teachers in the body of Christ because God appointed it to be that way. That they need to be tested had been stated early in the conversation.

There is no simple test to prove as if they can never go wrong later in life.

This conversation could have been avoided if you didn't make assumptions about what people mean especially when they don't even allude to what you think they mean.

When you guys resist what I had asked you to do, that to me means you prefer to rely on educational teachers rather than confirm to me that you have been doing what I was asking you to do.

Did you & @GeneZ even bothered to see the other definitions to tohu and bohu as also meaning vacuity, nothing, without form, hence what I have applied it to mean as the earth was non-existent in Genesis 1:2? Doesn't look like it to me.

And are either one of you will concede to the truth in Genesis 1:2 as the earth being non-existent or what?

 

[Arial]

Then no problem is noticed because I have often stated God does not have to make a plan. Just look at the top of this page at the opening statements of Post #541.

He has one, but He did not NEED to do so.

He didn't have a plan. He had a purpose and He knew how to bring it about and has the power to do so, and He did not sit down with The Son and the Holy Spirit and map it out. You are anthropomorphizing God. I know you will say that you aren't, but you are.

 

[Josheb]

Satan did evil. He did not create it.

Repetition does not make it so.

There is only one Creator who creates out of nothing.

Sin was not created ex nihilo. It was not created; it was made, and it was made consequent to that which already existed.

Satan had the capacity to rebel against God, and He did, and doing so would be evil because God is good.

That is true but that is not all that happened. His being changed.

Whan Adam disobeyed God (this op is about the fall of Man) not only was a sin committed, but sinfulness set in. Man was changed. His ontology was changed. I've already explained how sin is not merely a matter of conduct. Repeating the same protest does not change the facts of scripture. Man sinned (conduct) and became sinful (ontology, or disposition) and he was/is incapable of rectifying that condition. Some disobedience can be rectified (amends, restitution) but sinfulness is irreparable (except by Christ). Man (and satan) once had the capacity to please God. No more (again, apart from Christ). Man was once alive. Now he is dead in sin and not just individually, all mankind is collectively dead in sin. Adam had the capacity to rebel against God, and he did, and doing so all humanity is no dead in sin. That is evil.

This is a presupposition for which you give no actual support that will stand against all opposition.

That's just hogwash. I have provided scripture - plainly read - for EVERYTHING I have posted. I posted a half-dozen scriptural citations and referenced more in the post just quoted.

In a straightforward reading of those scriptures the serpent was already in the Garden of Eden.

Yep. I already covered that.

We have no record of when he was created.

Incorrect. Statements from Genesis, Job, the psalms, and the prophets provide something of a timeline for the heavenly host's creation (and the fall of lucifer/satan).

God declared what He created in those days good.

Yep. I stated that many posts ago, have repeated it since, and cited the scripture proving that necessarily to be the case.

There was also a tree in that Garden that had the fruit of the knowledge of evil as well as good.

Yep.

For all we know, Satan, when he was cast out of heaven was cast into earth that existed as Gen 1 tells us.

Incorrect, and I explained how that is incorrect. Satan could not have rebelled and been in the garden and God have called it good. Sin cannot exist in heaven or earth and God call it good. It is a self-contradictory, self-refuting premise. Creation was good. Sin came afterward. Genesis 1-2 is the story of creation. If the tradition of lucifer rebelling and become satan is true, then it happened AFTER creation was created and God called it good. Isaiah's report of the satanic fall has him worshiping God prior to his fall. It did not happen before Genesis 1:31.

God made the earth habitable and pleasing and perfect for the creation of man who would dwell on it and have dominion over it. And it was what was in the Garden, not what was outside of it, that he was given dominion over.

I do not believe I, nor anyone else in this thread, have claimed Adam and Eve had dominion over the entire earth. They were blessed and commanded to subdue the earth and rule over it. As far as the assertion "it was what was in the garden, not what was outside of it that he was given dominion over," Scripture proves otherwise.

Genesis 1:29-30
Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food;" and it was so.

All the earth, NOT just in the garden. Every plant and animal on the earth, even those outside of the garden, were given to Adam and Eve.

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

As far as the facts of the Genesis text goes, there is only one place where God mentions the garden to Adam and that's in Gen. 2:16. God had already told him every plant and animal on the earth had been given to him. Genesis 1:28-30 cannot be made to conflict with one another.

For all we know...

Speculation.

it was all about a challenge by satan...

What is "it"?

and for His own glory everything went the way it did and Satan was defeated once and forever through the redemption of these corruptible humans who became corrupted, and through their redemption all of creation---the one yet to come and the end of days. And Satan and evil are forever destroyed permanently. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is gone, and what remains is the tree of life and living water.

I do not read anyone disputing that. Nothing I have posted should be construed to say anything to the contrary.

I do not present that as any sort of truth...

So.....

....you've dropped into the thread asked me about things I have already posted more than once and challenged it with error, speculation, and "I do not present that as any sort of truth," and you want me to give it some credence?

, for neither I nor anyone else knows what God has hidden from us.

I completely agree and nothing I have written should be construed to say otherwise. It is what God has revealed we can know.

I simply present it to show that you don't know anymore that the rest of us.

Non sequitur. I never once claimed to know any more than anyone else. If you think otherwise, then I'd like to see that evidence. Show me where I stated, "I know more than the rest of you." Do it now, please. Otherwise, stow that dross because it has no place in the thread.

 

[Josheb]

He didn't have a plan.

I have shown that to be incorrect.

He had a purpose and He knew how to bring it about and has the power to do so,

False dichotomy. A purpose and a plan can exist simultaneously.

and He did not sit down with The Son and the Holy Spirit and map it out.

Tell it to someone who has suggested that's the case.

You are anthropomorphizing God. I know you will say that you aren't, but you are.

You are making baseless accusations that have all already been addressed in this thread.

I doubt you could summarize my position in two or three sentences, but let's see. Prove to me and everyone else you are not arguing a straw man.

 

[Josheb]

He didn't have a plan.

Let's see...

Psalm 33:11
The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation.
Isaiah 25:1
O LORD, You are my God; I will exalt You, I will give thanks to Your name; for You have worked wonders, plans formed long ago, with perfect faithfulness.

Jeremiah 29:11
For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans for prosperity and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope.


In Reformed theology these plans were ordained from eternity. Every mention of God's "intent," "purpose," "hope," "work," "designs," "timing," and more speak to God having a plan. God has a plan. God does not NEED to have a plan, but he does. Post #553 is incorrect.

 

[GeneZ]

He didn't have a plan. He had a purpose and He knew how to bring it about and has the power to do so, and He did not sit down with The Son and the Holy Spirit and map it out. You are anthropomorphizing God. I know you will say that you aren't, but you are.

God within Himself/the Trinity/ never needed words expressed.
God within Himself needs no vocabulary.

He just knows. He has always been knowing.
All three are always in total in agreement without a word being expressed.

Words are used by God as a means.
Words are used when He wants to reveal to men and angels what He has always been knowing.
The Word of God is written for our sake.
Not to be as a memo pad for God.

To us? Its a plan.
To God?
Its simply... what always was "being to be."

Men who try to immerse their thinking into what its like to be omniscient?
They end up becoming strained mental contortionists, with convoluted ideas.
They force Scripture into a box way too small to contain it.

If its not yet understood? We must leave it be. Accept it by faith, and rest.
Just making sure best to our ability, that what we do not understand is objectively understood.
Accurate translation then becomes essential.

When the Lord told 99 year old Abraham that he was to have a son with his post menopaused wife, Sarah?
Abraham discerning the truthfulness of God simply relaxed and rested in the promise.
Abraham did not try to find a way to make it work in his limited way of thinking...

Thus..
The Fall of Man follows the reality found in Romans 8:28.
For its God making it work for the good for those who have matured into knowing the love of God.

Believers who have yet to mature into experientially knowing the love of God?
They may suffer from a form of 'sub-clinical theological panic.' And, may resent
others who do not share in their weakness of doubt.

When we enter into spiritually maturity to know God as He would have us to know Him?
When confronted by what dwarfs our thinking ability? We will respond to what is said.

When we have yet to know God, as He would have us to know Him - with spiritual maturity?
We will react. And, scramble to justify what we think we should believe with Scriptural
misapplications in an attempt to white wash away our doubting.



grace and peace .......

 

[sawdust]

Doing something outside His character is not always denying Himself. You've argued a false dichotomy.

No if you think God can act outside His character you don't know God as well as you think.

saiah 45 tells us God creates evil, yet He is not evil. In an already evil-filled world He creates evil - despite it being outside His character - and He does not deny Himself when He does so.

That verse does not mean what you are trying to make it mean. God is not evil, I agree, therefore He is not creating evil as you are trying to make it sound. He does not act outside of His character if He did, we would not be able to trust His word without question.

Did God not have a plan for man's not-fall? What? Josh, you're nuts. Yes, maybe, but my being nuts has nothing to do with the fact the question asked is not being answered.

Why would He need a plan for a creation He had no intention of manifesting? Of all the universes that could have been manifested this is the one God ordained. Everything from go to whoa is and occurs because God has willed it, permitted it or over-ridden the will of others. This is how God's will works. Balaam is a good example where we see how God's will works. The question becomes irrelevant when you know what and why God has done what He has done. I don't think your nuts, I think you're naive.

 

[Arial]

Men who try to immerse their thinking into what its like to be omniscient?
They end up becoming strained mental contortionists, with convoluted ideas.
They force Scripture into a box way too small to contain it.

Then why are you even asking the question why did God plan for the fall of man. And the speculating about it with words used as though they are absolutes?

To us? Its a plan.
To God?
Its simply... what always was "being to be."

You word your question as though God had to have a plan in case man fell. A plan B.

The Fall of Man follows the reality found in Romans 8:28.
For its God making it work for the good for those who have matured into knowing the love of God.

"for the good for those who have matured into knowing the love of God" is nowhere found or implied in that scripture.

Believers who have yet to mature into experientially knowing the love of God?
They may suffer from a form of 'sub-clinical theological panic.' And, may resent
others who do not share in their weakness of doubt.

Are you going to rewrite the entire Bible of just portions of it as conversations go along? "Sub-clinical theological panic!" my foot.

When we enter into spiritually maturity to know God as He would have us to know Him?
When confronted by what dwarfs our thinking ability? We will respond to what is said.

I will withhold further comment while I wait for you to arrive at such a level of maturity and cease to ask questions that are very poorly presented like the OP title. And make obnoxious statements such as you make. When you have finished with the word salad responses and the additions and presuppositions you bring to the Bible.

 

[Arial]

Let's see...

Psalm 33:11
The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation.
Isaiah 25:1
O LORD, You are my God; I will exalt You, I will give thanks to Your name; for You have worked wonders, plans formed long ago, with perfect faithfulness.

Jeremiah 29:11
For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans for prosperity and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope.


In Reformed theology these plans were ordained from eternity. Every mention of God's "intent," "purpose," "hope," "work," "designs," "timing," and more speak to God having a plan. God has a plan. God does not NEED to have a plan, but he does. Post #553 is incorrect.

Give your definition of plan in relation to the OP. I find the use of purpose or purposes much more accurate. His purposes are eternal, always existed, He always knows them and all their details, and brings them to pass. A purpose is much bigger than a plan, even though we can say He planned it, it leaves room for diminishment of who He is. A plan connotes determining how to accomplish something by contemplating the best way to do it.