Why would He plan for Adam's not fall if He purposed that he would fall? Man is still being put at the center, and sin is being treated as an oops that might or might not have happened. God did not make man fall, but He purposed that he would fall. And if you want to know why, I will tell you, though you should know. For His own glory.
If you think God cannot act outside His character you don't know God as well as you think.
I do not believe you have a clue what I mean.
I have already addressed this matter. In an already sinful world God is sovereign over sin and He uses sin for His purpose(s). He did not make creation that way. He made creation good and sinless. That is His character: good and sinless. But the world became adulterated by sin and God, still being sovereign, can and does use sin and evil to accomplish His purpose.
It is within His character to act out of character.
Yep. No dispute there.
That is correct. God is sovereign over all. His knowledge of sin and the condition of humanity's fall did not necessitate God needing a plan for the fall of man.
You have also got to stop using post-sin scripture to describe pre-sin conditions. It creates false equivalences and those make everything you post nonsense.
I agree, but I reject the simplistic answer "God purposed it for His glory." God is not the author of sin and He did no violence to the human will causing Adam to sin, nor did He do violence to the contingency of secondary causes that brought about Adam's disobedience. But I also hold the matter irrelevant. God's purpose(s) in creations were going to come about whether sin ever happened or not because God, His plan, and His purpose are not in any way dependent upon sin.
God is glorified no matter what He does. He does not NEED sin to glorify Himself and He does not NEED a plan specifically for sin to glorify Himself. God's glory is not a magical "get of rationality" car we get to play every time something comes up to which some do not know the answer. I will wager you have read me say, "God is glorified when He metes out the just recompense for sin just as much as when He saves by grace. The exact same cross that saves also condemns."
Would it be better if I asked if God had/has a plan for the redemption of fallen mankind?
I find it amazing that someone could think "God purposed it for His glory" a simplistic answer. It shows a lack of true understanding of the transcendency, sovereignty, and yes, glory of God, as well as the sola,"for His glory alone." The rest of that quote is nothing more than a repeating of yourself and an assumption that you actually know His purpose in creation of our world to the degree that you can say it was not dependant on sin. And that if it was all about sin and redemption, that would make God the author of sin. You are trying to defend Him. You think you are the one who has found THE answer to what is often a dilemma to some. But all you have done is to present God who created for one purpose, that purpose was thwarted, and so He had to rectify the situation, and fix His creation. Of course you will deny this and we will get a further putting down of all of us persons of lesser intelligence. Which is what most of your posts consist of should anyone have the audacity and stupidity to disagree with you. Even all of this will be dismissed as ad hominem while ignoring the way in which your own posts are filled with it. But if fact, that is not what it is, but an encouragement for one who requires a heavier hand, from admin, to do better.
That you think anything I have said means that sin is sovereign over God is mind boggling. That you think if the fall of Adam was a part of God's purpose means that sin is sovereign over God is mind boggling. If the fall was His purpose, that purpose would be to defeat evil forever. Read the end of the book.
And how great is His glory made known when He destroys all His enemies! Evil was not invented or created or came into existence with the creation of man. We are simply how it came into the world God created for us.
He evidently purposed to address it through the creation of our world and the creation of us, for the utter destruction of evil. That is what the entire Bible shows Him doing.
Perhaps it is because you often seem to say one thing and then another when confronted with what was said. Never making yourself clear. And perhaps though you think you are dealing with the fact that God created a world in which sin was possible and then dealt with it, by saying He had a different purpose for cre.ating this world, and that that creation had nothing to do with sin or evil; and that that purpose would have been achieved without sin; therefore this creation was not dependent on sin; solves the problem of why sin is in the world without God being the author of it. But merely side steps it with what if theories, you do not even acknowledge as what ifs. Rather they are stated as absolutes and get frustrated when they are not accepted as such. In the first place you approach the issue from a logical fallacy. As though anyone was saying God is the author of sin, which they do not.
That is an oxymoron. God cannot be other than who He is.
He purposed for man to fall when He created him. Otherwise man would not have fallen. And He had a plan if you must, for dealing with it, but it was far greater than simply planning on the way in which to deal with it in man---we see what He was doing and doing for all eternity, in the epistles and in Revelation. He is destroying evil and the father of lies forever.
Is this a strawman? I have not read every post in this thread, and I do not bother to retain in my memory the content of every post of every person. Did anyone ever say that God is dependent on sin to determine His plans? His plans are made in order to deal with sin once and for all, and in order to do that, it is sin and its ultimate source, the devil, that must be addressed. Ultimately it is Satan that God is dealing with. He is always using sin for His purpose.
It was man's fall that was necessary in order for God to deal with what He was dealing with. The "plan" the entire plan in all its details was already in place before the creation of man.
The sovereign act of God was the event of the fall.
Then why does that scripture if continued past this point, say that "for those who are called according to His purpose"? And before that it says there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ? And nothing can separate us from His love?
The good that the redeemed perform is not as filthy rags before God, for they are given the righteousness of Christ through faith. Their filthiness has been washed by the blood of the Lamb. The righteousness that is filthy rags before God applies to those not in Christ. Romans was written to believers and applies to believers, not unbelievers. As does Romans 8:28.
Yes. If only to have avoided all that followed generated on the subject of your wording by @Josheb. And his insistence that every one talk about what he wanted to talk about.
It is impossible for God to do anything without a purpose. That falls right up there in the category of those who claim He can and sometimes is arbitrary. If He has no purposes for something it would not come into existence or even enter His mind. His word always does what He sends it to do. He does not send it to do nothing and for no reason.
The Greek refers to a sense of...
What's the difference? The "we" is still the believers he was writing to. Do you think they are all mature? Not likely as it was early days in the church.
There is not even a hint in that passage that what you say is so. And what does psychiatric care have to do with what Paul is saying. What you leave out when you say these things is that it is God who works in us to accomplish His purpose. You treat it like He saved us then left us as orphans when it comes to becoming what He purposes us to become.
Do you consider yourself mature in doctrine and still adulterate scripture in the way you are doing?
That scripture applies to the one before it."I charge you (Timothy) in the presence of God ad of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.
Of course it does. Does that then mean that God is not working all for our good until we are mature in Christ?
Of course! What does that have to do with the scripture that says God works for the good of the believer?
The scripture in Romans does not say that God withholds working all things for our good until we we know that He is doing so. In all your maturity, why on earth do you think such would be the case? God works good for His covenant people because He is good. When we know that has nothing to do with that scripture. Paul is making a statement of truth, and says this in known---not that we know it. He is telling them this truth. They no doubt were not hearing it for the first time.
And simply making this statement does not address the statement.
Sin wasn't made either. Sin is. The minute something is made good it automatically brings its opposite into existence, for it cannot be good unless there is also a not good. There is no such thing as "up" unless there is also "down." No "front" unless there is also a "back." God is multidimensional and He created a dimensional world. And sin entered our world and us, through a created being who already existed in a state of having fallen. And who was fallen in the Garden. The Bible does not say that is when satan fell and became the father of lies. He already was the father of lies and lied to Eve.
OF COURSE IT DID! Why are you interjecting that into the conversation.
I was not repeating the same protest and I have never denied the above. I don't know why you found it necessary to post.
You give no scriptural evidence for the following:
I have not disputed the scriptures you post but they do not say that the serpent created sin after the six days of creation, and that if this were not the case then God would not have called his creation good. I went over all of this before showing you where you make what ifs be actual facts, and showed you where you could not be right. But it went in one ear and out the other evidently, either that or another fact is that you can never be wrong about anything, as you said it again here and I was put in the position of refuting it again.
And he was already a liar.
A timeline? Lets see the timeline.
Already refuted and explained. And as an aside, since you present all of your arguments on the subject as such---do you think the heavens and earth as we know them are God's only creation?
Yep that is what "for all we know" means. But why is your speculation fact and mine is presented as speculation. That was the whole point of my speculating as I did, which I also told you was the point of it, to show there are things we do not know and cannot know---not even you can know them.
Creation of our world.
This reply has no value because it is responding to something that you took out of its context.
I guess you find it convenient to miss the point on purpose.
Much of what you post can be construed that way. Starting with the oxymoronic idea that God can do things opposed to His own character. Or that He is capable of creating something that has no purpose. Satan first sinned in the Garden of Eden. That God didn't need sin to come into creation in order for it to be dealt with once and forever. That His purpose for creation would have been achieved without sin.
Thank you for your time but if you cannot keep the posts about the posts and not the posters then do not expect further replies.
I have already addressed both protests and after doing so more than once do not expect me to unnecessarily repost already posted content.
The posts prove otherwise.
No. First of all it's off-topic. This op is specifically about the fall of man, NOT the fall of satan. Second, you were the one making the baseless claim scripture does not tell us when satan fell so it's up to you, not me, to prove it. I do not do shifting onuses.
Never happened.Yes. If only to have avoided all that followed generated on the subject of your wording by @Josheb. And his insistence that every one talk about what he wanted to talk about.
You keep confusing "for a believer" with "for all believers."
A believer is part of all believers. Does not knowing Romans 8:28 stop God from working for their good?
The may not know all truth, and none do. They may not interpret things the way that you do or the way someone else does, but unless that interpretation changes the Christ of the Bible, and the means of salvation, it does not make them an unbeliever. Being mature is not a criteria of salvation. And a true believer will never reject Christ.
Maturity has nothing to do with it. You are adding to the gospel. What is it they don't discern here? The sacrificed body of Christ. Put the verse into its context. They were abusing the Lord's Supper.
Your own doctrine seem very unsound, so I wouldn't be throwing that particular stone. And you better pray you are not right in what you say here.
And Paul was correcting them, not condemning them.
You knew them did you? Plus the church at Corinth was not the same audience as that of Romans and Paul was no dealing with the same thing in both places. And what he said in Romans about God working for the good of His people was not changed in any way by what was said at Corinth.
And you are a part of that very thing when you adulterate the word in the way you are doing with just these three scriptures. Your doctrine is not sound. It is in opposition to what the Bible says and your stuff added to it.
How do you know He isn't? He allowed me to be in a lot of it before He brought me out of it. And when He did I learned how to discern truth by having experienced falseness. I learned why it was false and not just that it was. I learned the truth, and I know what counters the lies because I learned the truth. I learned more about God by coming out of the lie than I ever could have from never having witnessed the lies. It is often the means by which a person grows.
So you say He can act outside His character but you don't mean He can act outside His character?
No, the salient point is God didn't do many things, He did one thing. That's the point.
No, he couldn't walk away. You keep making God act like a human. He let sin and death enter because He loves His creation.
Sin did not change God so your argument is invalid.
