The devil messed that up by his solicitations to Eve.
Josef_Urban wrote:Quote:The devil messed that up by his solicitations to Eve.God doesn't have a plan B. If that's the case, plan A was a miserable failure, which means God is far less than perfect. God forbid that any should suggest such!The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.
rbanks wrote:Quote:Josef_Urban wrote:Quote:The devil messed that up by his solicitations to Eve.God doesn't have a plan B. If that's the case, plan A was a miserable failure, which means God is far less than perfect. God forbid that any should suggest such!The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.Why is it so hard to believe that God has given His creation a free will to obey or disobey?Why do some have to think, that if God gave his creation a free will and then planned redemption because of knowing mans failure, then that is accusing God of making a mistake?Why cant we just believe that within Gods sovereignty He gave man a free will to choose to love Him and obey Him? Why is it so hard to believe that God Gave Lucifer (an archangel) so much power and freedom that He got proud and because God gave Him freedom He abused it to try and get praised for himself?Why is it so hard to believe that in Gods sovereignty He allowed it to happen and therefore created man a little lower than the angels to defeat Satan?So creating man lower than the angels, God wanted man to overcome the devil and rid the world of evil. God being all knowing, He knew the risk of giving man free will and prepared a head of time for redemption. He kept man from eating of the tree of Life after he sinned, so that he would not be glorified in a sinful state but could be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb and still overcome the devil.The overcomers in Christ shall inherit all things and have a glorified body like the angels in the resurrection. Praise God! Why not believe this instead of accusing God of creating people with no hope of redemption just so He can send them to hell, when that is against His nature of Love.Blessings to all!
tjservant wrote:I have noticed you grappling with these doctrines on various threads. I think it is good to discuss and understand them. I wish you well brother. May God lead, guide, and direct you in your studies.Grace and peace my brother
The subject of this thread appears to be one of the many age-old arguments. As with many of the others(age-old arguments)this one to is connected and related to various other doctrines. I believe the reason for such connection is due to the Truth that none would argue, namely this, "But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth." (Job 23:13) Yet men have and do attempt to bring Him down to their level, Psa 50:21-23 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such a one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes. Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver. Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I show the salvation of God. May we truly meditate upon His Word and think upon The Most High Who fills Heaven and earth. Consider what He is saying here. Do we know this God? Oh! that we'd acquaint ourselves with Him, and not some image we've formed in our own minds that we make into God and present such to others. If I'm correct, I think the subject of this thread is the argument between two terms. From Elwell Evangelical Dictionary The term "supralapsarianism" comes from the Latin words supra and lapsus; the decree of predestination was considered to be "above" (supra) or logically "before" the decree concerning the fall (lapsus), while the infralapsarians viewed it as "below" (infra) or logically "after" the decree concerning the fall. The contrast of the two views is evident from the following summaries. The logical order of the decrees in the supralapsarian scheme is: (1) God's decree to glorify himself through the election of some and the reprobation of others; (2) as a means to that goal, the decree to create those elected and reprobated; (3) the decree to permit the fall; and (4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ. The logical order of the decrees according to infralapsarians is: (1) God's decree to glorify himself through the creation of the human race; (2) the decree to permit the fall; (3) the decree to elect some of the fallen race to salvation and to pass by the others and condemn them for their sin; and (4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ. Neither side suggests that the elect were chosen after Adam sinned. God made His choice before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4)long before Adam sinned. Both infras and supras (and even many Arminians) agree on this. H. Bavinck has this to say, "Supralapsarianism undoubtedly has in its favor the fact that it refrains from every attempt to justify God, and that both with respect to reprobation and with respect to election it rests in God's sovereign, incomprehensible, yet wise and holy good pleasure." He further states,"Now Reformed theologians all agree that the entrance of sin and punishment was willed and determined by God. It is perfectly true that words like permission and foreknowledge do not solve anything. The difficulty remains the same, and the same questions arise; viz., why, if God foreknew everything, did he create man fallible, and why did he not prevent the fall? Why did he allow all men to fall in Adam? Why does he not grant to all men faith and the blessing of hearing the Gospel? In brief, if God foreknows and permits something, he does this either willingly or unwillingly. The latter is impossible. Accordingly. only the former remains: God's permission is an efficacious permission, an act of his will. Nor should it be supposed that the idea of permission is of any force or value over against the charge that God is the Author of sin; for he who permits or allows someone to sin and to perish in his sin although he was able to prevent him from sinning is just as guilty as he who incites someone to sin. On the other hand, however, all agree that although sin is not excluded from the will of God it is, nevertheless, contrary to his will; that it is not merely a means to the final goal, but a disturbance in God's creation; and that Adam's fall was not a step ahead but a fall in the real sense of the word. It is also a fact that admits of no doubt that, however much logical reasoning may demur, no one is able to suggest other and better words than permission, foreknowledge, preterition, dereliction, etc." Bavinck's concluding remarks, "Neither the supra- nor the infralapsarian view of predestination is able to do full justice to the truth of Scripture, and to satisfy our theological thinking. The true element in supralapsarianism is: that it emphasizes the unity of the divine decree and the fact that God had one final aim in view, that sin's entrance into the universe was not something unexpected and unlooked for by God but that he willed sin in a certain sense, and that the work of creation was immediately adapted to God's redemptive activity so that even before the fall, i.e., in the creation of Adam, Christ's coming was definitely fixed. And the true element in infralapsarianism is: that the decrees manifest not only a unity but also a diversity (with a view to their several objects), that these decrees reveal not only a teleological but also a causal order, that creation and fall cannot merely be regarded as means to an end, and that sin should be regarded not as an element of progress but rather as an element of disturbance in the universe so that in and by itself it cannot have been willed by God."Some of the names of men who fall on one side or the other are:Infralapsarianism John CalvinJohn OwenThomas WatsonMatthew HenryGeorge WhitefieldJonathan EdwardsC.H. SpurgeonCharles HodgeThornwellWilliam G.T. SheddL. BoettnerAnthony HoekemaRobert Lewis DabneyB.B. WarfieldMartyn Lloyd-JonesScott HillJason Robertson R.C. SproulJohn PiperSupralapsarianism BezaJohn GillAbraham KuyperHerman HoeksemaA. W. PinkCornelius Van TilGordon ClarkLouis BerkhofKarl BarthRobert ReymondThe above names are just a few of the many which could be listed.There is also the sublapsarianism view and also what is known as Amyraldism. Under the Amyraldism view would be:AmyraldismRichard BaxterJohn BunyanTimothy DwightA. H. StrongHenry ThiessenJ.C. RyleLewis Sperry ChaferR.T. KendallThese studies can be and are mentally exhausting.Therefore I will stop here.If any are interested they may do further study on their own.As for me, I am content knowing Him and His absolute sovereignty, and will serve The LORD God Who is omnipotent and reigneth.
"Supralapsarianism"Ah, it's been awhile since we have seen this ... It has been given some treatment in the past here, a search would bare it out.To the original comment\question at hand;Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. [b]Tit 3:9 - Avoid foolish questions, and genealogies[/b] - In these the Jews particularly delighted; they abounded in the most frivolous questions; and, as they had little piety themselves, they were solicitous to show that they had descended from godly ancestors.Of their frivolous questions, and the answers given to them by the wisest and most reputable of their rabbins, the following is a specimen: - Rabbi Hillel was asked: Why have the Babylonians round heads? To which he answered: This is a difficult question, but I will tell the reason: Their heads are round because they have but little wit.Adam Clarke
Blessings to you my brother even though you can't answer my questions.
Adam was purposed to bring pleasure to His Creator, as a son was to any Father.[in human terms] In the creation of Adam, made after the image of God himself, and possessing the attributes of the Father, Adam was given a will, and a conscience. God has a will, in the affairs on the Earth, and His conscience is part of his character, which we call Holy. My answer is neither. Adam was not purposed to fall; It was simply a fruit of a decision he made, through his very own volition, to act as he saw fit. The angels possessed this very essence also, as some chose to act as they desired. We call these acts sin. It is willfulness outside of the will of God. Without a will, you are not a personality, and technically do not have a conscience. You are not a person, or a personality. Adam was therefore not purposed to usher in the Redeemer either. It was God's purpose to redeem Adam, not through the creation of Adam, but an attribute of God that we know as Love, or compassion, for the weakness, and eternal trouble that his beloved creation had got himself into. God sits in the front of the room, and at the back of the room, at the same time. In his economy, we live before him even now, in New Jerusalem. He is the beginning, and the end; the Alpha and Omega; the first and the last. The Bible speaks of the Lamb that was slain, before the foundations of the Earth. Jesus, laid his life down, before there was Adam. So Adam was not created to manifest the Messiah, through His sin, and God's following mercies. It was the plan before all things, stemming from God's character, to act on behalf of him, and his offspring, after making a terrible mistake, all on his own. God foresaw Adam's bite into eternal death. For God so loved the World, that He gave. He gave. It's that simple. The wheels of the incarnation were spinning long before in eternities past, before Adam fell. Adam's choice. God loved. Jesus came for this.
tjservant wrote:I will leave it to the folks, much wiser than I, that have thoroughly replied to these questions and many like them before. Please search for threads on these topics. The doctrines of grace are well documented. I doubt there are any new questions being asked. The answers are there
you may not want, like, or agree with them.Grace and peace brother
"Did George W. Bush invade Iraq because he liked boxing, and enjoyed a healthy fight, or was it because he has seen too many John Wayne movies?" This is called a straw man, a term that Sermonindex folks are well aware of, as they are inundated with this kind of logic. It means basing your opinions and statements upon a faulty assumption, and then comparing that assumption with your ideas to form a division that may appear to qualify an empirical judgement. [empirical means the logical process of "if this is so, therefore this stands to reason."] 'Purposed to fall" In your case, your inquisitive assumptions are both faulty, and without merit, so that whatever is derived upon either logic would bolster your perceived enigma unto the negative. It is Questioning one untruth in an either or process to accept another untruth. In one sense, it is not worthy of responding to, for this reason alone. I question whether your inquisition is authentic, and not contrived for reasons of controversy or the "uncaused cause"...ergo; the enigma. If Adam was purposed to fall, then was the human race purposed to fall. This means that my God designed much of humanity to boil in sulphur throughout Eternities, as His will. You have my God mixed up with another of his creations, that became pure evil. The first leg of your straw man; to me; a little blasphemous. Jesus suffered, after he left his throne in pure love, to bleed and be tortured to rescue Adam. It was not His purpose for Adam to fall, but to live, as an object of His affections. He adored Adam, and redeemed him, at great cost to Himself....the death and Sacrifice of His Son, Yahweh Yeshua! "Purposed for the incarnation" This has similar implications. The incarnation was arrived at before the foundation of the world, when Jesus was slain. Adams purpose was that God desired a son, and children, that He could pour Himself into, and enjoy. God loves, and he loved Adam. He saw that all of Creation was "GOOD" Jesus was "incarnated" to be Crucified, and overcome Death, not for reasons of Adams existence. "For this reason was the Son of Man manifested, that He might destroy the works of the Devil!" Jesus came to rescue Adam, and his children, from a fate to horrible to think. We were helpless. Adam was not purposed "for the incarnation". He was simply bound and without hope, in the midst of his life, and driven away in despair from Eden. The "incarnation" was not founded on the fact that Adam existed, or was created, but in order to Redeem Adam, the Lord Yahweh had to become an Adam...of the race of men. "Lo, a body has thou prepared for Me!"[it is written in the BOOK!"] Adam was purposed to live, and be, in the fellowship of His Creator. Jesus manifested Himself to bring mercies, and restoration, in spite of Adam's apparent hopeless state; to overcome Death, and the grave...which are, by the way, Eternal places. Janus was an early name of Satan within the Babylonian religions. He was depicted as a two faced being, with only one head. This is what your straw man reminds me of. Two lies opposing the other to prove one or the other as a truth. "Has God Said?"............