• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.

Why Did God Plan for the Fall of Man?

You ask for chapter and verse to spell it out for you?
So you do not have to think and figure out what is needed?

Here is the problem.
I can not solve it for you.
You can only solve it by gaining more and more knowledge for yourself before all else.

He is what I speak of...Philippians 1:9

"And this is my prayer: that your love may abound
more and more in knowledge and depth of insight."


You ask for chapter and verse when what is really needed is insight after the verses have been shown.

I can recommend a good teacher that can teach you more knowledge than you would know what to do with unless that knowledge is needed for an answer to a problem. But? Do you want it?

Its free for the asking. That is God's way of raising up a genuine teacher.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree [edit by mod]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on your speculations.


I have no problem with you saying they're speculations.

I do have a problem when someone closes their mind and throws it away.

Just store it away in the back of your mind, and maybe down the road the Holy Spirit will fill in needed details.

grace and peace .................
 
I created the OP.

Sorry... its you who keep failing to see the relevancy.
Which is why the question was asked. While I may be challenged to see the relevancey, I am not challenged to keep the posts about the posts.
Preconceived notions we will find must be taken to the Cross when truth we were not aware of, when we accepted them, is brought to the surface.
Isa 55:8-9​

We are living in a process designed by God to humble each one of us. Our old way of making ourselves confident must be done away with as God exposes us to truths that reveal how wrong we could be. Yet, felt confident that we were right. That fear it produces is the beginning of wisdom.


Prov 3:5-6​

Until we are corrected by God's Word our paths will not be straight. God needs to get us straight on the truth. Sound doctrine is the only solution. Doctrines of men keep us close to home, for that road can not go very far. We have a choice. Now is time that will decide our eternal status in Heaven with God. All here are saved. For we all have the foundation of our salvation in faith in Christ.

But!
1 Cor 3:11-15​

Christ did not call us to endure to the end as to remain/be saved. That passages says even the worst loser who believed in Christ will be saved!

But we have been given salvation to find ourselves in heaven with great blessings. Rewards beyond our imagination because we endured the testings that tried to draw us away from finding Truth needed to demolish the strongholds that were designed to distract us away from FINALLY discovering what the truth really was!
While I might disagree with some of the liberties taken with the quoted verses, there's not a single word above I do not already know. What I do not know is how our acting out overtly what God has always known would be is relevant to God's plan for the fall.
I created this OP.
Yes, you did.
I know what the intent was.
Then tell me how, "We are all acting out overtly what God has always known would be," is relevant to God having a plan for the fall of man.
 
Something like that. Considering the bible says Satan walked in the garden in an unfallen state...and then tempted Eve.

Isaiah 14:12-14.....you can start there.
???? Isaiah 14:12-14 does not state Satan walked in the Garden in an unfallen state. In fact, the portion of verse 12 that states, "You have been cut down to the earth," appears to say they exact opposite. He was cut down, and his cutting down placed him on earth. He was cut down to earth having previously fallen from heaven.

Is there some other scriptural basis and/or support for the premise Satan/Lucifer "walked in the garden in an unfallen state"?
 
Then tell me how, "We are all acting out overtly what God has always known would be," is relevant to God having a plan for the fall of man.


Because when Satan had this desire he was condemned by God. But, Satan nor any of the angels understood what his desire indicated.
God knew. And, God judged.

What was that desire?


“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’
Isaiah 14:12-14​

What was so bad about that?

Yes.... Satan was jealous of the Lord.

But, does that deserve the Lake of Fire?
 
Because when Satan had this desire he was condemned by God. But, Satan nor any of the angels understood what his desire indicated.
God knew. And, God judged.

What was that desire?


“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’ Isaiah 14:12-14

What was so bad about that? Yes.... Satan was jealous of the Lord.
What does that have to do with God's plan for the fall?
But, does that deserve the Lake of Fire?
Yes! But I will concede that is somewhat relative because anyone tossed in the lake of fire is getting off easy.
 
Why?

Choose or Refuse ~ by ReverendRV * February 16


Isaiah 62:5; For as a young man marries a virgin, so shall your sons marry you; and as the bridegroom rejoices over the brides virginity, so shall God rejoice over you.

In debates with Atheists, I come across some who genuinely want to know a Christian’s answer to their objections. Questions range from the simple to the complex; and sometimes the simple questions are those that need the complex answer. Bill the Atheist asked, “What is God’s real goal in creating Mankind?” Bill didn’t want answers like ‘The chief end of Man is to Glorify God and enjoy him always’. Bill objects that if this is the reason, then God could have made us in such a way that he would not eternally destroy us in Hell for our Sin. The ‘Shorter’ Catechism answer is correct, but Bill wanted a ‘lowest common denominator’ type of answer that will satisfy his objection. I responded by saying there can be more than one satisfactory answer, but I will give him my answer; “God’s real goal in creating Mankind was to give his Son a Bride”

There are a few Theological Doctrines that come into play in answering the question; a complex answer to a ‘one liner’ question. One Doctrine is the Immutability of God; he doesn’t change. In eternity, God is a Trinity; the Son proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. Since this is described as happening in eternity, it tests the Mind to think of a time when the three are not one. Because God doesn’t change, he cannot produce a Bride from his Essence like God produced a Son from his Essence; IE the Doctrine of Consubstantiality. A Bride must then be Created; thus she is the weaker vessel. This is where the Doctrine of God’s Incommunicable and Communicable Attributes come into play. A Creature cannot have all of God’s Attributes, or the Creature would be God. For instance, God is said to be ‘from Everlasting to Everlasting’; a Creature can only be from Creation to Everlasting. But a Creature can possess Gods Communicable Attributes, IE ‘Cogito ergo sum’; which means ‘I think, therefore I am’. ~ Man was Created a little lower than the Angels but through a relationship with God, our station is made higher than the Angels; making us closer to God. We will always be less than Divine, but through a Marriage with God’s Son; ‘the two become one’. This is how God’s Son gets a Bride…

Now as to why this couldn’t be achieved apart from the Fall of Adam, a Bride must be able to choose or Refuse her Groom, or the Marriage is not a true relationship. Mankind was Created Good; with freedom of Will. God gave Man dominion in the world, and this makes it necessary that we are free to exercise our dominion. The downfall is; Man can choose to Sin. ~ Because of Pride, Lucifer fell into Sin even in the pure environment of Heaven; and remember that Man was made weaker than the Angels. There comes a time we need to ask, ‘Can God have a relationship with a Mankind who can’t choose him without an option to resist?’ Would it be worth it for God to force himself on Humanity? ~ Are you Proud? Have you forced yourself on anther person? Go to God’s Risen Son Jesus Christ through Faith, for forgiveness of your Sins and you will become a pure Virgin by being Born Again; fit for marriage. When it comes to your Righteousness, God will rejoice over you! Repent of your Sins and join a Bible believing Church. ~ You have to admit, you’ve previously resisted his advances and he hasn’t forced himself on you yet; perhaps your Will is bound, just the other way around? Exercise your dominion; Choose him or Refuse him…

Matthew 22:1; Jesus spoke to them, saying: The Kingdom of Heaven is like a King who prepared a wedding banquet for his Son.
 
Last edited:
What does that have to do with God's plan for the fall?
One step at a time for this one, please.
All I have been saying is trying to lead with reasons as to why God had the fall take place.

If you want me to jump right to the end? Without building up to what is leading to it? Is no good.
You will need more info to be fair. Otherwise, without that info you could flip off the answer.

First you need to answer the question. If you have no answer, just say so.

What was Satan's desire?


“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’
Isaiah 14:12-14


Angels began in a pristine world straight from the hand of God.
There was no evil until Satan fell.

Having come out of a pristine world the angels had no understanding for the fallen angels feelings some were having.
For they had nothing to teach them with to show them that what they feel is evil.

How was God to teach them?

To create creatures to teach angels. Creatures angels could identify with (like man) in a meaningful way. Teach what sin causes, to show the angels the consequences of their wrongful desires?

God can not create sin. So that was not an option....

Man could not be created sinful....
 
Last edited:
One step at a time for this one, please. All I have been saying is trying to lead with reasons as to why God had the fall take place.
And what I am saying is there is a better way to look at God's plan (and the whole of scripture) than to believe "God had the fall take place." It begins with a simple but very important change in the premise of God having a pln.

God has a plan for creating creation.
vs
God has a plan for the fall.​

God has a plan for all of creation, not just the fall. God has a plan for all of creation and the fall is simply one very small event in the MUCH larger creation, a single event in history, a single event that is not the defining moment of creation or its history. To start with, or to specify "the fall" is to already have made a mistake.

I'll provide two comparative examples to better clarify what I just said. The first example has to do with a recurring conversation I used to have with a troll in another forum. He liked to define the entire Bible and the entire history of God's relationship with his people by the covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 17. No matter how many times I tried to get the point across to him he could never accept the premise starting seventeen chapters into the story of the Bible was NOT starting from the beginning. He could not or would not begin with the beginning. I tried to use the analogy of picking up any novel and starting with the seventeenth chapter and how that would skew the reader's understanding of the entire novel. He refused to accept the premise. The second example is just the opposite. I am currently reading a book discussing God's covenants from a historical-redemptive hermeneutic that makes a very similar observation, commenting on how many do start with Abraham but in doing so entirely miss all the redemptive aspects and all the covenant aspects of the Bible that precede Abraham and are found referenced later - thousands of years later in the New Testament.

The point is this: it a huge mistake to define "God's plan" by the "fall." You, GeneZ seem to grasp this. At least it appears that way reading the posts. However, the posts do not read very consistent because the fall is continuously brought up as a defining feature of the plan - so much so that God had the fall take place. God did certainly allow the fall to take place but if the fall is seen as an event for which God has to have a specific particular dedicated plan, then that immediately returns us (you and me) to the point I broached earlier: God cannot be made the cause of sin.

That is, simply put, bad theology. It is bad theology because it has the righteous God making unrighteousness. It has The Law Maker making lawlessness. It has the God who made flesh good, unashamed, and sinless changing His mind to make the same flesh evil, shameful, and sinful. These are contradictions at a presuppositional level.

And when I ask what the various comments have to do with God's plan for the fall the response is to either tell me I'm ignorant and you're know more than everyone else, or non sequiturs like,
All I have been saying is trying to lead with reasons as to why God had the fall take place.
Well, what if God did not have the fall take place?

Yeah. What if God did not have the fall take place? What if the fall is one of countless events that take place every single day, day in and day out that have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the plan of God that preceded the fall? What if God, knowing the fall was going to occur, shrugged His almighty shoulders and said, "Meh, already got it taken care of; it's not a thing." What if humanity has wasted huge amounts of time, energy, pen, ink, paper, and cyberspace on an event that is nowhere near central to the BOTH the whole of scripture and God's plan for creation? What if starting with the fall is a huge mistake? What if the plan is Jesus and not the fall? What if Jesus was coming whether or not the fall ever happened?


Have you got any room in your thinking for any of those premises?
 
And what I am saying is there is a better way to look at God's plan (and the whole of scripture) than to believe "God had the fall take place." It begins with a simple but very important change in the premise of God having a pln.

God has a plan for creating creation.
vs
God has a plan for the fall.​

God has a plan for all of creation, not just the fall. God has a plan for all of creation and the fall is simply one very small event in the MUCH larger creation, a single event in history, a single event that is not the defining moment of creation or its history. To start with, or to specify "the fall" is to already have made a mistake.

I'll provide two comparative examples to better clarify what I just said. The first example has to do with a recurring conversation I used to have with a troll in another forum. He liked to define the entire Bible and the entire history of God's relationship with his people by the covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 17. No matter how many times I tried to get the point across to him he could never accept the premise starting seventeen chapters into the story of the Bible was NOT starting from the beginning. He could not or would not begin with the beginning. I tried to use the analogy of picking up any novel and starting with the seventeenth chapter and how that would skew the reader's understanding of the entire novel. He refused to accept the premise. The second example is just the opposite. I am currently reading a book discussing God's covenants from a historical-redemptive hermeneutic that makes a very similar observation, commenting on how many do start with Abraham but in doing so entirely miss all the redemptive aspects and all the covenant aspects of the Bible that precede Abraham and are found referenced later - thousands of years later in the New Testament.

The point is this: it a huge mistake to define "God's plan" by the "fall." You, GeneZ seem to grasp this. At least it appears that way reading the posts. However, the posts do not read very consistent because the fall is continuously brought up as a defining feature of the plan - so much so that God had the fall take place. God did certainly allow the fall to take place but if the fall is seen as an event for which God has to have a specific particular dedicated plan, then that immediately returns us (you and me) to the point I broached earlier: God cannot be made the cause of sin.

That is, simply put, bad theology. It is bad theology because it has the righteous God making unrighteousness. It has The Law Maker making lawlessness. It has the God who made flesh good, unashamed, and sinless changing His mind to make the same flesh evil, shameful, and sinful. These are contradictions at a presuppositional level.

And when I ask what the various comments have to do with God's plan for the fall the response is to either tell me I'm ignorant and you're know more than everyone else, or non sequiturs like,

Well, what if God did not have the fall take place?

Yeah. What if God did not have the fall take place? What if the fall is one of countless events that take place every single day, day in and day out that have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the plan of God that preceded the fall? What if God, knowing the fall was going to occur, shrugged His almighty shoulders and said, "Meh, already got it taken care of; it's not a thing." What if humanity has wasted huge amounts of time, energy, pen, ink, paper, and cyberspace on an event that is nowhere near central to the BOTH the whole of scripture and God's plan for creation? What if starting with the fall is a huge mistake? What if the plan is Jesus and not the fall? What if Jesus was coming whether or not the fall ever happened?


Have you got any room in your thinking for any of those premises?

I see by all my posts being deleted.

I am noting a strong resistance..... before I can explain myself.
 
Last edited:
nt
 
Last edited:
I see by all my posts being deleted.
Exaggeration. ALL your posts were not deleted. The only ones deleted were those that had nothing to do with the op. Seven were deleted. Four or five times that many remain (apparently with the approval of the moderator).
I am noting a strong resistance..... before I can explain myself.
All the questions asked by all the posters here are evidence an explanation is wanted, not resisted. No one is stopping you but you.
 
@GeneZ

  1. Did God forcibly cause Adam to disobey God? You have stated, "I never said God caused the fall in the sense that God forced it to happen. I said He planned for it. He wanted it to happen. But I did not say He caused it in the sense I just mentioned," but that is not an answer to the question asked.
  2. Did God have a plan that pre-existed Adam's act of disobedience?
  3. If so, if God did have an already-existing plan, was that plan made solely and specifically to address Adam's disobedience prior to Adam disobeying?
  4. If God had a pre-existing plan and that plan was made for reasons other than Adam's disobedience, then what was the purpose of that plan apart from the fall?
  5. How is it not necessary to consider whether or not God had a plan prior to the fall, and whether or not that plan specified the fall as a necessity?
  6. Where is the scripture(s) stating God originally gave the angels dominion over what we call the prehistoric earth?
  7. When asked if God condoned sin the answer you gave was, "It looks bad, but in the long run it would work for God's glory." This is a utilitarian ethic whereby the ends justify the means. That is thoroughly incompatible with the premise God does not call good "evil," nor does He call evil, "good." How then can God plan for sin, want sin to occur, and then condone it because it works for His plan, and God's righteousness and goodness not be compromised?
  8. Did God plan for Jesus, or did God plan for sin? Did God plan Jesus. Did God plan sin? are the differences in these questions recognized?
  9. Post #44 states, "Adam was not in was called the Holy Mount of God. Nor ,were there fiery stones for Adam to walk among. It was a different Garden." There is a typographical error in that first non-sentence. Would you please clarify what that was intended to say? Is it being asserted Adam was not in the garden of Eden?
  10. Please cite the scriptures supporting the assertion satan walked in the garden in an unfallen state before tempting Eve. (I may have that particular statement confused with another poster so if it wasn't you who asserted the unfallen garden satan then ignore the request)
  11. What does satan having his desire have to do with God planning for the fall?
  12. What was satan's desire?


The opening post is yours to explain. You can see several posters have a lot of questions for you and several points of disagreement. Start with you op and explain it and as you explain your own op given consideration to the matters broguht to bear on it. Try to answer the questions asked and addressed the concerns broach as incrementally as you'd like. Try to answer the questions in a way that doesn't add more questions. Most importantly, keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.
 
@GeneZ

  1. Did God forcibly cause Adam to disobey God? You have stated, "I never said God caused the fall in the sense that God forced it to happen. I said He planned for it. He wanted it to happen. But I did not say He caused it in the sense I just mentioned," but that is not an answer to the question asked.

God did not forcibly make/cause Adam to disobey.

  1. Did God have a plan that pre-existed Adam's act of disobedience?
His plan was before the foundation of the world. Before Adam was created. So, yes.

  1. If so, if God did have an already-existing plan, was that plan made solely and specifically to address Adam's disobedience prior to Adam disobeying?
Solely? Never said that. So, the answer is "no." His plan covers the entire history of time itself.

  1. If God had a pre-existing plan and that plan was made for reasons other than Adam's disobedience, then what was the purpose of that plan apart from the fall?
You seem to be leaving out that God's plan was in part based upon Adam's fall. But, that is only a phase in the plan.

  1. How is it not necessary to consider whether or not God had a plan prior to the fall, and whether or not that plan specified the fall as a necessity?
God's plan was made before anything was created. Nothing took Him by surprise that caused Him to have a "Plan B."

The necesssity part has got to do with making His enemies into His footstool. That is the need he took care of.

  1. Where is the scripture(s) stating God originally gave the angels dominion over what we call the prehistoric earth?

If you understood and agreed with the GAP teaching in Genesis 1:2 you would see why it opened the door to consider what took place.

If you understood that Lucifer never brought in the morning light in this creation it might help as well. But, he was said to be the "bringer in of the morning." He does not bring in our morning light in this creation. So, when did he?

“How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning [light-bringer], son of the dawn!" Isaiah 14:12 (Amplified Bible)

I got that insight from a pastor who knows Hebrew who became a missionary to Israel. The Amplified bible translators saw it as well.

  1. When asked if God condoned sin the answer you gave was, "It looks bad, but in the long run it would work for God's glory." This is a utilitarian ethic
Condoned? Not what I said.

  1. whereby the ends justify the means. That is thoroughly incompatible with the premise God does not call good "evil," nor does He call evil, "good." How then can God plan for sin, want sin to occur, and then condone it because it works for His plan, and God's righteousness and goodness not be compromised?
  2. Did God plan for Jesus, or did God plan for sin? Did God plan Jesus. Did God plan sin? are the differences in these questions recognized?
  3. Post #44 states, "Adam was not in was called the Holy Mount of God. Nor ,were there fiery stones for Adam to walk among. It was a different Garden." There is a typographical error in that first non-sentence. Would you please clarify what that was intended to say? Is it being asserted Adam was not in the garden of Eden?
  4. Please cite the scriptures supporting the assertion satan walked in the garden in an unfallen state before tempting Eve. (I may have that particular statement confused with another poster so if it wasn't you who asserted the unfallen garden satan then ignore the request)
  5. What does satan having his desire have to do with God planning for the fall?
  6. What was satan's desire?


The opening post is yours to explain. You can see several posters have a lot of questions for you and several points of disagreement. Start with you op and explain it and as you explain your own op given consideration to the matters broguht to bear on it. Try to answer the questions asked and addressed the concerns broach as incrementally as you'd like. Try to answer the questions in a way that doesn't add more questions. Most importantly, keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.
You ask me to many questions. Do you think one can answer all of them at once?
 
Last edited:
I will cite one example of what I have been getting at..... and why God needed man fallen to explain why Lucifer was condemned for only having a thought and desire that no one could see but God Himself.

And, this is only a tip of the iceberg...

Absalom was David's beloved son.
David was a Righteous king. Just the same..
Absalom wanted to kill his father David and take over his thrown.

That incident with David and his son Absalom served as a perfect illustration to teach angels as to what Satan had in his heart towards the Lord when he wanted to make himself as the Most High.

For Lucifer to make himself like the Most High? As to receive the worship of the angels? Was like Absalom wanting to murder his own father David and take over his throne. If man was not fallen there would have been nothing to teach the angels of the evil that Lucifer had in his heart. They would have never understood jealousy and murder, for in the angelic realm such actions were never allowed to be acted upon... let alone to know how murder worked.

If there were no fall of man? Nothing would have existed to teach the angels what it was in Satan's heart, and why God found it absolutely necessary to judge Satan as he had.

God could not have created man sinful as to show the angels why their once beloved Lucifer was in trouble. Needed to show to the angels because all that happened took place unseen in Lucifer's mind and desire. Angels would have remained confused about God if it were not explained so they could understand. So God needed to allow for the fall of man to produce a creature able to make the angels to see manifested overtly with actions what Satan's inward desire was towards the Lord. Without fallen man it could never have been done.
Leaving angels would eternally confused not able to understand why God revealed this thing called "wrath" for Satan.

God knows how ultra happy all redeemed people will be after they enter eternity, and that any suffering faced now in time would seen as nothing to even bother to remember. He will wipe away every tear. No more pain no more sorrow.

Because the fall was to happen? God had from the beginning planned the Cross for redemption to gain back men for those whom God knows are his own.

Jesus suffered and agonized on the Cross while bearing our sins with a suffering that not one of us could fathom. It dwarfed any suffering man could ever face while in time....

The suffering we all must go through because of the fall is the Potter's Wheel that will make us to become as God determined it would be.

That was still a tip of the iceberg, but a suspect too much for some to grasp at this time. So I will stop here.

grace and peace ....................
 
Yeah. What if God did not have the fall take place? What if the fall is one of countless events that take place every single day, day in and day out that have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the plan of God that preceded the fall? What if God, knowing the fall was going to occur, shrugged His almighty shoulders and said, "Meh, already got it taken care of; it's not a thing." What if humanity has wasted huge amounts of time, energy, pen, ink, paper, and cyberspace on an event that is nowhere near central to the BOTH the whole of scripture and God's plan for creation? What if starting with the fall is a huge mistake? What if the plan is Jesus and not the fall? What if Jesus was coming whether or not the fall ever happened?
Hmmm ... things that make you think.
Thanks for that.
 
God did not forcibly make/cause Adam to disobey.

His plan was before the foundation of the world. Before Adam was created. So, yes.

Solely? Never said that. So, the answer is "no." His plan covers the entire history of time itself.
I completely agree.
You seem to be leaving out that God's plan was in part based upon Adam's fall. But, that is only a phase in the plan.
No, I am not leaving it out.
You should stop telling others what they think.
I have asked you several times to stop doing that.
Please keep the posts about the posts.
If you want to know what I think then ask.

I have not left any such thing out and I have already stated my position on that matter: I do not think the fall was any particular concern to God's plan because His plan already covered ALL possibilities; God did NOT have to make a special, dedicated part to His plan to address the contingency of disobedience. His plan already had that foreknown inevitability well addressed.
God's plan was made before anything was created. Nothing took Him by surprise that caused Him to have a "Plan B."
I completely agree.
The necesssity part has got to do with making His enemies into His footstool. That is the need he took care of.
I agree. Sort of.

The concept of "enemy" warrants defining and clarification. Why? Because the Bible speaks of enemies and war with God from beginning to end but it always does so within the inescapable, undeniable, all-pervasive, uniform context of the Creator's divine, sovereign all-mightiness. To speak of a finite creature attempting to wage war with any almighty infinite Creator is to talk nonsense. It is like trying to explain how a housefly wages war against a nuclear bomb at ground zero. The fly is instantly annihilated and there is nothing the fly can do to prevent the overwhelming might of nuclear destruct from having its effect on his inconsequential existence. War with God is like shooting spit wads at an Abrams tank.

This should be understood as a given every time any mention of any word like "enemy" or "war" with God is written.

God spoke creation into existence, and He can speak it out of existence as if it had never existed in the first place, completely erasing any and all record of it. No war with God lasts even a fraction of a second longer than He and He alone wants it to persist. It is always and everywhere a gross misunderstanding of scripture to think otherwise. The creature has absolutely no might against the Creator.

It is a defining feature of God's plan.

Have you forgotten that? ;)
If you understood and agreed with the GAP teaching in Genesis 1:2 you would see why it opened the door to consider what took place.

If you understood that Lucifer never brought in the morning light in this creation it might help as well. But, he was said to be the "bringer in of the morning." He does not bring in our morning light in this creation. So, when did he?

“How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning [light-bringer], son of the dawn!" Isaiah 14:12 (Amplified Bible)

I got that insight from a pastor who knows Hebrew who became a missionary to Israel. The Amplified bible translators saw it as well.
I encourage you to 1) stick to scripture 2) be cautious with any Judaic rendering of scripture because Jewish theology was often in error both doctrinally and in practice, and 3) my understanding is not the subject of this thread. You will either explain your views in your own words without insinuating negatives about the other posters or I'll have the mods review your posts again.

Is that understood?

Keep the posts about the posts, not the posters.

If the "GAP teaching" is thought salient then prove that premise. Explain in in an evidential manner. Use scripture (not extra-biblical sources). If the tradition of Lucifer becoming satan is thought relevant, then explain how that is necessarily so and do it with scripture first.

Everyone here is waiting on you. No one is stopping you from posting your case but you. Stop talking about others and prove the op.
Condoned? Not what I said.
What you said is a matter of record. What you said is, "It looks bad, but in the long run it would work for God's glory." I did not say you said "condoned." No one has said you said "condoned." What you said is a matter of record and what you said is, "It looks bad, but in the long run it would work for God's glory." That statement is found in Post #23. You were asked, "Does God condone sin?" and in direct response to that specific question you answered, "It looks bad, but in the long run it would work for God's glory."

That is what you said.

Demonstrably.

Undeniably.

That perspective is utilitarian. I am simply asking, How then can God plan for sin, want sin to occur, and then condone it because it works for His plan, and God's righteousness and goodness not be compromised?

That
is the current question awaiting an answer. Try answering it without bringing anyone else's knowledge or memory into the thread.
You ask me [too] many questions.
No, I do not.


Everyone in the thread so far is asking you questions. That is how people learn. It's the only way to understand another. No one is trying to attack you. We just want to know if you have considered these questions, if you have answers, can these inquiries be answered and addressed - can the position asserted in this op be proven? I ask questions to better understand the case being asserted by an op. Poster assert positions all the time but very few are able to articulate a sound case for what they believe and this becomes evident when very basic, valid, relevant questions cannot be answered. It is how iron sharpens iron. Discussions flow best when questions are answered directly and succinctly with clarity, well-rendered scripture, and an absence of personal insinuations about others.

Just answer the questions asked. Doing so is very much appreciated and benefits everyone. So far we have a lot of agreement and very little disagreement.
 
Do you think one can answer all of them at once?
Nope. I do expect valid and op-relevant questions to be answered and op-relevant comments addressed.... op-relevantly. Give it a try. I appreciate the answers received. I commend them. I'd like the rest of my inquiries and comments answered and addressed. Take your time. The thread is not going anywhere. You can take an entire day to think about a question before answering it. The thread will still be here when you get back. Half my (first round of) questions were answered. Thanks. Do more of that.

Just answer the questions asked. I may have more questions ;). Let me also suggest another approach to the one currently taken because there are A LOT of posts that talk about people in the Bible who came along LONG after the fall. They have NOTHING to do with the fall's origins. Every single one of those posts is committing one fallacy or another simply because they avoid explaining how Genesis 3:6-7 is planned and planned with deliberate foreknowledge and intent. Until that one specific point is addressed everything else that follows is a diversion. The fall is a single event. Explain how that one single, solitary event is God's plan.

I have another recommendation for you because if the tradition about Lucifer/satan is correct then there are TWO falls, not one. Satan fell. So did Adam and Eve. They did not fall at the same time. Satan disobeyed God and if Romans 6:23 applies to the angelic host then satan is not a free agent; he is a slave. Satan can do nothing more than any other dead and enslaved sinner and his destiny is decided.

That is part of God's pre-existent plan.


So make sure you are being very specific, very clear, very articulate when explaining this op. Everyone here is waiting on you. Take your time. Think before posting. Give us all very scriptural, very rational reasons for accepting this op because so far the explanations are messy, and we all want you to do better. We are not your enemy, stop treating us that way. Others have different questions about this op. Me?
I have asserted an alternative to this op that, imo, is much more consistent with whole scripture plainly read, provides much more explanatory power, answers all the questions all these posters have asked, and avoids some of the problems that have appeared in this thread. At some point I'd like you to give it some consideration. Ask me all the questions you like about it. I am happy to provide parity. Settle into the thread, Gene. The thread is not going anywhere. For now, I also currently have six still unanswered questions for which I'd like answers.

  • When asked if God condoned sin the answer you gave was, "It looks bad, but in the long run it would work for God's glory." This is a utilitarian ethic whereby the ends justify the means. That is thoroughly incompatible with the premise God does not call good "evil," nor does He call evil, "good." How then can God plan for sin, want sin to occur, and then condone it because it works for His plan, and God's righteousness and goodness not be compromised?
  • Did God plan for Jesus, or did God plan for sin? Did God plan Jesus. Did God plan sin? are the differences in these questions recognized?
  • Post #44 states, "Adam was not in was called the Holy Mount of God. Nor ,were there fiery stones for Adam to walk among. It was a different Garden." There is a typographical error in that first non-sentence. Would you please clarify what that was intended to say? Is it being asserted Adam was not in the garden of Eden?
  • Please cite the scriptures supporting the assertion satan walked in the garden in an unfallen state before tempting Eve. (I may have that particular statement confused with another poster so if it wasn't you who asserted the unfallen garden satan then ignore the request)
  • What does satan having his desire have to do with God planning for the fall?
  • What was satan's desire?

Just answer the questions asked. Help everyone understand.
 
Just answer the questions asked. I may have more questions ;). Let me also suggest another approach to the one currently taken because there are A LOT of posts that talk about people in the Bible who came along LONG after the fall. They have NOTHING to do with the fall's origins. Every single one of those posts is committing one fallacy or another simply because they avoid explaining how Genesis 3:6-7 is planned and planned with deliberate foreknowledge and intent. Until that one specific point is addressed everything else that follows is a diversion. The fall is a single event. Explain how that one single, solitary event is God's plan.

I have another recommendation for you because if the tradition about Lucifer/satan is correct then there are TWO falls, not one. Satan fell. So did Adam and Eve. They did not fall at the same time. Satan disobeyed God and if Romans 6:23 applies to the angelic host then satan is not a free agent; he is a slave. Satan can do nothing more than any other dead and enslaved sinner and his destiny is decided.
Here is Genesis 3:6-7 you brought up.

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye,
and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her
husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and
they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for
themselves." Genesis 3:6-7​


[edit by mod - deleted content is off-topic] Same chapter. Genesis 3

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made.
He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say,
‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it,
or you will die.’” Genesis 3:1-3.​

That command never said one must not touch the fruit.
The woman added to the Word of God.


[edit by mod; deleted content is off-topic]


Please, can you explain why the woman added to the Word of God?
......and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
Genesis 3:1-3.

The command was this...


The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from
it you will certainly die.” Genesis 2:15-17​

The woman added to the Word of God for some reason.

[edit by mod; deleted content is off-topic]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
God already planned for the Fall of Man.
Of course God is omniscient and knew man would fall.
The question I have God gave the green light to have man fall?
All part of the plan OF WHICH WE KNOW NOTHING. Simple as that. I'll ask later (if I even have to).
 
Back
Top