Greeting SMA. Good conversation. I hope your week is a blessed one.
Second, regarding your quote specifically. But it does correctly establish that God's word is not making your observation a point of the lesson. I have correctly established what the point of the lesson tells us, directly. You, on the other hand, are attempting to defend something beyond the lesson, i.e., that the order of the acts means something beyond what the lesson is teaching. In your defense, it may mean something, however, that would then require scriptural support along with biblical reasoning that it means something beyond the direct lesson (instead of simply a man's theology).
So what is your scriptural support that the order of Genesis 3 acts are intended to mean something beyond the lesson?
If you look back over what I have written in this thread. You will find that I asserted that it is true, one's internal corruption precedes one's external actions. However, establishing that something is possible brings nothing to the table about when Satan fell. One can go on all day giving logical "possibilities", but then are we really seeking God's truth in His word?
1. through one man sin entered the world
The biblical text tells us that SIN first entered the world through one man, Adam. I'm interested in your understanding of how Satan's pre-Edenic fall does not bring SIN into the world first. That would require you giving me your position, which you haven't done yet.
2. and death through sin
So death enters the world because sin first entered the world.
Second, your quote above ignores the observation that because Romans 5:12 says that Adam was the first to bring sin into the world then it therefore follows that it was not Satan who first brought sin into he world. In other words, if Satan's order of sin actually means something, and the story of Genesis 3 isn't meant to be a collective-fall-all-at-once story, then it would seem to follow that Satan then is the first to bring sin into the world (as the Gap-Theorists suggest). Which then contradicts Rom 5:12.
Good conversation
Peace to you brother
First, you may be arguing against something that wasn't in my last post. I'm not sure. You seem to be arguing primarily against the concept of "no importance". Simply by recall, you might be referring back to my post #55 which was title "The Irrelevant Distinction of Satan's Inward Corruption". In that post I laid out how postulating Satan's inward corruption was irrelevant to the story of Genesis 3 and that postulating there was indeed a fall of Satan prior to the Eden account based simply on the logical order of inward corruption brings errors in what the biblical text is trying to tell us. In and of itself it was not an assertion that contemplating the order of corruption in general has no importance...but an assertion that contemplating the order of corruption in the Genesis 3 collective-fall account brings errors and therefore brings little significance to the understanding of Satan's fall. (and leads to theories like the Gap-Theory).Saying, "The story makes no distinction, or emphasis on Satan's over Eve's . . .," does not establish that correctly noting that Satan sinned prior to Eve who sinned prior to Adam is of no importance.
Second, regarding your quote specifically. But it does correctly establish that God's word is not making your observation a point of the lesson. I have correctly established what the point of the lesson tells us, directly. You, on the other hand, are attempting to defend something beyond the lesson, i.e., that the order of the acts means something beyond what the lesson is teaching. In your defense, it may mean something, however, that would then require scriptural support along with biblical reasoning that it means something beyond the direct lesson (instead of simply a man's theology).
So what is your scriptural support that the order of Genesis 3 acts are intended to mean something beyond the lesson?
If you look back over what I have written in this thread. You will find that I asserted that it is true, one's internal corruption precedes one's external actions. However, establishing that something is possible brings nothing to the table about when Satan fell. One can go on all day giving logical "possibilities", but then are we really seeking God's truth in His word?
First, I want to make sure you are not avoiding what Romans 5:12 says. You correctly present that Rom 5:12 tells us that death came into the world due to one man (Adam). But you seem to keep leaving out the first thing that the Scripture says was brought into the world by Adam (which seems ironic since you want to focus on the correct order in Gen 3).Romans 5:12 says that death entered into the world through the sin of Adam--Satan's sin did not bring death into the world. Because we know with certainty that Satan's sin in the Garden that preceded the transgression of Eve and the sin of Adam did not bring death into the world, there is no necessity to hold that had Satan fallen prior to what he did in the Garden, death necessarily would have come into the material universe.
1. through one man sin entered the world
The biblical text tells us that SIN first entered the world through one man, Adam. I'm interested in your understanding of how Satan's pre-Edenic fall does not bring SIN into the world first. That would require you giving me your position, which you haven't done yet.
2. and death through sin
So death enters the world because sin first entered the world.
Second, your quote above ignores the observation that because Romans 5:12 says that Adam was the first to bring sin into the world then it therefore follows that it was not Satan who first brought sin into he world. In other words, if Satan's order of sin actually means something, and the story of Genesis 3 isn't meant to be a collective-fall-all-at-once story, then it would seem to follow that Satan then is the first to bring sin into the world (as the Gap-Theorists suggest). Which then contradicts Rom 5:12.
We are totally in agreement here. Not by the information you present before it...but as a general conclusion, we agree.In other words, holding that Satan's fall preceded his sinful deception of Eve in the Garden does not require us to have to believe in any form of "Gap theory" where humans had sinned and died prior to what took place in the Garden of Eden.
You have me at a disadvantage. I don't know your view. You have consistently not given it. But the point that you respond to with your disclaimer, above, that you don't hold the Gap-Theory, is in response to me giving examples of how thinking Satan falling prior to the garden of Eden event might matter. I didn't try and put that position on you, but showed two positions of how I think it leads to errors and why it is important.Again, I categorically reject any and all forms of the "Gap theory."
Good conversation
Peace to you brother
