What Was God Thinking?

[percho]

View attachment 3362

For those who say that God "looked down the corridors of time" and merely provided the Cross as a remedy to something that would happen to His plan (and He didn't have to look far. Maybe you should call it a "cubbyhole of time.") ...

What was His original plan? To frolic naked in a garden paradise till the world was over populated?

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

I believe he was thinking about destroying the devil, Satan,, the sinner from the beginning along with his works and that would require the sinless Son of God to die on the cross.and be raised from the dead.

 

[percho]

BTW for my previous to take place would also require sin and death.

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;

 

[MartyF]

Well, I didn't know, but you're at least consistent with the small god of non-Calvinism.

The Calvinist demiurge can't figure out how to do anything without controlling absolutely everything. That is a pathetic dead god. Worshiping the Calvinist demiurge is like worshipping a rock.

The commandment to multiply was given before the Fall, Einstein. Presuming obedience had they persisted in an unfallen state is not citing special revelation.

Aaron can't seem to present points without name-calling. What's next? Is Aaron going to call me fat? Is he going to insult my mother? How will my ego take it? Oh, wait . . . I don't care what Aaron says about me. But it does say a lot about him.

Reproduction being possible before the fall doesn't mean reproduction happened in the exact same way, or as often, nor in a nonconsensual, unplanned manner. Aaron's adding his own special revelation as to how the reproduction occurred and whether it would ever stop. Extra-Biblical special revelation is how Calvinists gain most of their beliefs.

Once again, the reproduction was not done in the exact same manner as before the fall. Not just physically, but mentally as well.

Genesis 3:7 NLT
At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.

Genesis 3:16 NLT
[16] Then he said to the woman, "I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you. "

How reproduction happened before the fall is not entirely known.

At no point did I ever say that reproduction would never had occurred if the fall did not happen. That is Aaron's strawman argument.

So the answer is He'd just keep making garden space for the nudists. Now there's some theological prowess, right there.

No, the God I worship has far more creativity and intelligence than Aaron does. Of course I have far more creativity than the Calvinist demiurge.

 

[Aaron]

The Calvinist demiurge can't figure out how to do anything without controlling absolutely everything. That is a pathetic dead god. Worshiping the Calvinist demiurge is like worshipping a rock.

You're beautiful when you're angry.

Reproduction being possible before the fall...

No, not 'possible.' Commanded.

doesn't mean reproduction happened in the exact same way, or as often, nor in a nonconsensual, unplanned manner. Aaron's adding his own special revelation as to how the reproduction occurred and whether it would ever stop. Extra-Biblical special revelation is how Calvinists gain most of their beliefs.

Once again, the reproduction was not done in the exact same manner as before the fall. Not just physically, but mentally as well.

Genesis 3:7 NLT
At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.

How reproduction happened before the fall is not entirely known.

At no point did I ever say that reproduction would never had occurred if the fall did not happen. That is Aaron's strawman argument.

No, the God I worship has far more creativity and intelligence than Aaron does. Of course I have far more creativity than the Calvinist demiurge.

Cocoa Puffs. Kookoo for Cocoa Puffs, that is. Sounds a lot like the cavils of one who is either struggling with a hangup over sex, or of one wresting the narrative into a consistency with faithless Evolutionary thought. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Back to the narrative as God delivered it. The commandment is to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth, not to occasionally reproduce. And the commandment is given to the humans, Adam and Eve. There is no rational question as to the act that would have been required to result in a new human, unless one has trouble coming to grips with Canticles or the Genesis 'day.' Regardless as to the (covers Marty's ears and whispers) how (uncovers) of multiplying and filling the earth, the commandment would have been obeyed where so sin and disobedience had entered in.

If sin had not entered in, meaning no Atonement at the fulness of time, and the earth was filled, then what? That's the question. It's an open-ended question that Marty may speculate on as freely and creatively as his little mind can imagine asexual human reproduction and a god that can't know some things.

 

[Aaron]

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

I believe he was thinking about destroying the devil, Satan,, the sinner from the beginning along with his works and that would require the sinless Son of God to die on the cross.and be raised from the dead.

I disagree that anything God wished to do would necessitate the death of His Son, especially the destruction of a sinner. Christ's death and Resurrection accomplished the redemption of sinners, not their destruction.

But it seems to me that you are saying that the earth was created for the purpose of Christ's death, and that I agree with.

 

[Aaron]

But I see you've got no problem with being a mind reader.

It's what you said when you spoke of God looking down the corridors of time and seeing that Adam would sin.

 

[Aaron]

I'd like to urge you to re-think what you've stated here, Aaron.

Even in jest I would not have made such a comment.
I realize that you were only being tongue-in-cheek...

But I for one would have never even come close to suggesting such a thing.
Please think about how you present the Lord in your posts, sir, so as to bring only glory and honor to His name.

I think I see what you meant.

It should be worded as thus: What was His original plan? For us to frolic naked in a garden paradise till the world was over populated?

I would agree that a suggestion that God would frolic naked would be irreverent at best, and was not my intended meaning.

If a moderator is watching, could he change the wording in the OP to match the edit I suggested?

Thank you.

 

[Yeshua1]

@Aaron , do you think non-Calvinists actually believe the Cross was not always part of God's redemptive plan? Sure. Once we get into the weeds of the conversation we have plenty to disagree with them about election and predestination but I am not sure I would start a dialog saying they do not believe the Cross was not always part of God's plan.

Do they hold that the Fall had to happen though?

 

[InTheLight]

It's what you said when you spoke of God looking down the corridors of time and seeing that Adam would sin.

I never said I personally believed that, I said that is the logical position Calvinists must assume when they lay out their arguments about the Fall.

Did you ever get Hooked on Phonics? It's supposed to really help with reading comprehension.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Dave G]

I never said I personally believed that, I said that is the logical position Calvinists must assume when they lay out their arguments about the Fall.

Isn't that the essence of a strawman, ITL?
Declaring what someone's position "must be", and then arguing against that position, as if that is the position represented?

My question to you ( and the other readers here ) would be this:
What does God's word say about the Fall?

I think that that should be the only position assumed, by anyone.

 

[Dave G]

I think I see what you meant.

It should be worded as thus: What was His original plan? For us to frolic naked in a garden paradise till the world was over populated?

I would agree that a suggestion that God would frolic naked would be irreverent at best, and was not my intended meaning.

If a moderator is watching, could he change the wording in the OP to match the edit I suggested?

Thank you.

My apologies Aaron...
I took it as meaning that He was doing that act, and that is why I was upset about it.

I suppose that is the difference ( and the limitation ) between spoken, face-to-face conversation, and written conversation.
It's easy to assume one thing, when that is not what the author intended.

Writing can be so demanding, especially when one realizes that what goes down in writing, cannot be retracted as easily as if one were speaking to a person in casual conversation.
It has caused me to watch what I write more carefully, though I still have my moments.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[MartyF]

You're beautiful when you're angry.

No, not 'possible.' Commanded.

Cocoa Puffs. Kookoo for Cocoa Puffs, that is. Sounds a lot like the cavils of one who is either struggling with a hangup over sex, or of one wresting the narrative into a consistency with faithless Evolutionary thought. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Back to the narrative as God delivered it. The commandment is to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth, not to occasionally reproduce. And the commandment is given to the humans, Adam and Eve. There is no rational question as to the act that would have been required to result in a new human, unless one has trouble coming to grips with Canticles or the Genesis 'day.' Regardless as to the (covers Marty's ears and whispers) how (uncovers) of multiplying and filling the earth, the commandment would have been obeyed where so sin and disobedience had entered in.

If sin had not entered in, meaning no Atonement at the fulness of time, and the earth was filled, then what? That's the question. It's an open-ended question that Marty may speculate on as freely and creatively as his little mind can imagine asexual human reproduction and a god that can't know some things.

Once again Aaron argues with a strawman and acts like a teenager.

Revelation 22:3-5 NLT
[3] No longer will there be a curse upon anything. For the throne of God and of the Lamb will be there, and his servants will worship him. [4] And they will see his face, and his name will be written on their foreheads. [5] And there will be no night there-no need for lamps or sun-for the Lord God will shine on them. And they will reign forever and ever.

That’s God’s idea. Mock it if you wish.

 

[percho]

I disagree that anything God wished to do would necessitate the death of His Son, especially the destruction of a sinner. Christ's death and Resurrection accomplished the redemption of sinners, not their destruction.

But it seems to me that you are saying that the earth was created for the purpose of Christ's death, and that I agree with.

Think about it.

Was the first man Adam, a living soul, 1 C 15:45 made a little lower than the angels in order that Jesus, the Christ, could be made a little than the angels?

Romans 5:14 but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him who is coming.

Adam was created lower than the angles because of the death. It would be through, the death, that the son of man,/the Son of Man, would destroy him who had the power of, the death.

Foreordained before the foundation of the world, it would be through redemption by the blood, that would be the means of destroying the devil and his works.

Death brought about by sin with life after death were necessary before the foundation of the world.

Let there be Light brings forth the scenario of dealing with the Darkness on the face of the deep, the Darkness of the world about to be laid down.

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.! John 3:8 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Rom 8:3 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb 2:14

IMHO God had a plan before the foundation of the world. That plan involved a lump of clay called Adam.

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Rom 9:20,21

The first man Adam was created for the last Adam not the other way around, for the purpose of destroying the works of the devil.

 

[percho]

I guess I am saying I believe Adam was predestined to bring sin and death to all men.

for to vanity (sin and death) was the creation made subject -- not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it -- in hope, (Redemption) Romans 8:20

Vanity of vanities, said the Preacher, Vanity of vanities: the whole is vanity. Ecc 1:2

 

[percho]

BTW That lump of clay, Adam. had a planed redeemer before he was formed.

 

[Particular]

What was God thinking? He was thinking this:

John 1:10-13 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Aaron]

I never said I personally believed that, I said that is the logical position Calvinists must assume when they lay out their arguments about the Fall.

That position is far from a logical necessity. It presumes a primary goal attainable without the events of the Fall and the work of Redemption, and renders the Cross a mere provision for something that was going to happen, but didn't need to happen, like taking a sword on a journey to repel thieves you knew would turn up, but would have rather not have.

Hence this thread. If the Fall was not a necessary event, what was man's destiny?

 

[Aaron]

Once again Aaron argues with a strawman and acts like a teenager.

Revelation 22:3-5 NLT
[3] No longer will there be a curse upon anything. For the throne of God and of the Lamb will be there, and his servants will worship him. [4] And they will see his face, and his name will be written on their foreheads. [5] And there will be no night there-no need for lamps or sun-for the Lord God will shine on them. And they will reign forever and ever.

That’s God’s idea. Mock it if you wish.

Glorification resulting from the work of Redemption. I agree that the Fall and the curse were necessary components of God's plan. As I've stated, I agree that Christ's work of Redemption was the reason this world was made. It was God's first thought. Maybe you should read the OP again.

 

[InTheLight]

That position is far from a logical necessity. It presumes a primary goal attainable without the events of the Fall and the work of Redemption, and renders the Cross a mere provision for something that was going to happen, but didn't need to happen, like taking a sword on a journey to repel thieves you knew would turn up, but would have rather not have.

Hence this thread. If the Fall was not a necessary event, what was man's destiny?

You need to explain--what is the definition of a "necessary event"?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Aaron]

Think about it.

Was the first man Adam, a living soul, 1 C 15:45 made a little lower than the angels in order that Jesus, the Christ, could be made a little than the angels?

Romans 5:14 but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him who is coming.

Adam was created lower than the angles because of the death. It would be through, the death, that the son of man,/the Son of Man, would destroy him who had the power of, the death.

Foreordained before the foundation of the world, it would be through redemption by the blood, that would be the means of destroying the devil and his works.

Death brought about by sin with life after death were necessary before the foundation of the world.

Let there be Light brings forth the scenario of dealing with the Darkness on the face of the deep, the Darkness of the world about to be laid down.

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.! John 3:8 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Rom 8:3 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb 2:14

IMHO God had a plan before the foundation of the world. That plan involved a lump of clay called Adam.

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Rom 9:20,21

The first man Adam was created for the last Adam not the other way around, for the purpose of destroying the works of the devil.

Here you said to destroy the works of the Devil, in your previous post you said to destroy the Devil. Those are different things. One is redemption, the other is not.

It sounds a lot like you're saying the world was created to destroy the Devil's works in the world of spirits before the world was created. But be careful here. Christ came in the form of a man, not an angel. He redeemed men, not angels. The creation of Adam has nothing to do with destroying the works of the Devil in the world of spirits. The work of Redemption of sinful men, not angels, was always the reason for the creation of the world.