True to my name sake! 1. We might not be able to know the exact why, but we can discuss possible reasons and whether those reasons are plausible or not. I'm uncomfortable, for example, with the suggestion that God created us (humanity) as an example for Satan. Why does Satan need an example when someone like Job is given none? Why aren't the holy angels a suitable example for Satan? Doesn't this suggestion (a) place Satan in a position of God's most loved creation, cf. Hebrews 12:6, and (b) turn creation from an act of love for creation into an act of loving discipline for Satan? And so on. 2. We don't know that Adam and Eve were immediately put to the test, so leaving that to the side I think we can come up with some very good reasons why they were tested. I gave what I think is a good reason in my first reply. 3. Maybe it could have gone a few ways, and God knew every possible way but it was only when certain actions were taken that a specific future was actualized. Or maybe the event was necessary and not having such an event would have resulted in a worse creation ultimately. 4. If it's God's will that his creation love Him freely, then they have to be given the opportunity not to. 5. I'm with RK on this one: the curses were prophetic rather than causative. We're not being punished for their actions, but we are living with the consequences.
Exactly, it's impossible to know for sure. And because of that we might miss something very essential. Yes, speculation (without biting Scripture) is what is left, unfortunately. I am thinking of a different scenario. Before satan rebelled there was no sin and no knowledge of good and evil. When satan (and co) rebelled God wanted to punish them. Likely at once. The rest of the heavenly creatures who remained loyal were totally flabbergasted by the new situation when sin made its appearance as they only knew good, love and bliss and they were discussing if God's decision to punish satan and co was not too harsh, satan maybe even was the origin of the risen doubt because he accused God He is unloving, a tyrant, not able to forgive a small trespass. Then God said, I will show you (all heavenly creatures, fallen or loyal) that these accusations are unfounded and in a Majestic event will create a new race in My own image that I love so much that part of Me (Jesus) will die for it, that I will forgive trillions and trillions of trespasses they will do against Me. Then, when the show demonstration is over there will be no creature (in heaven and earth) left who will doubt My goodness, My love, My forgiveness, and My righteousness, all knee shall bow and confess exactly that (Isa 45:23, Rom 14:11, Phil 2:10, Rev 5:13). Thereafter satan you will be punished. For now I will use you to establish my goal(s). So you may tempt My new beloved creation and they will experience both my goodness and blessings as well as the consequences of sin you of which you are responsible and nevertheless these creatures (while not have seen Me face-to-face as you) will love Me anyway. ----- I have another scenario, more shocking, but this posting is already long enough. Your point 2-5 perhaps in separate postings.
Essential to what, though? If Satan was capable of opposing God, then to me that suggests a knowledge of good and evil (and sin). For Satan to have taken steps against God would have required particular thoughts, perhaps 'I am better than God', 'God is unreasonable in His desires, commands, etc.', 'I am jealous of God', and so on. It seems to me one thing to be led down the garden path into sin, and quite another to sin all on one's own. Satan's behavior would seem to be inherent to his character (John 8:44): '[Satan] was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.' Declaring war on God is hardly a 'small trespass'. John 8:44 suggests to me that angels weren't ignorant of good and evil, obedience and disobedience, etc., so I'm not quite convinced by the naive angel narrative. I also don't think that Satan was in some way ignorant of the choices he was making, but your account seems to at least imply this. For instance, why is Satan beyond redemption as a result of his sin, but humanity isn't because of its sin? Why would God want to prove himself to the angels if He doesn't need to prove Himself to us? And why couldn't God prove Himself to the holy angels with the holy angels as an example to the fallen angels? Essentially I'm asking why an entire creation is necessary when God could have presumably stuck with the angels to prove His point?
Sure, another reason would be to learn obedience. There was nothing wrong with the fruit of that tree, eating from that tree won't kill anyone. However it became a symbol of obedience vs disobedience because God put a label on that tree with consequences. And they were disobedient. As I see it, in afterlife when God says "go left" we have learned to go left even if "going right" looks more promising instead because we have learned the consequences of disobedience, we don't want another bootcamp experience, the horrific mess mankind created (and ongoing) is well documented and available for everyone with an internet connection. In the hypothetical case someone wants to argue with the Lord that "going right" is also attractive (not disobedience yet) we might want to kick him or whatever is appropiate then ;D
Certainly. One way of looking at it. I don't think 'going right' would look more promising at all. Couldn't even begin to guess - new creation 'stuff' is incomprehensible.
I am not sure if I am able to keep up with all your painstaking questions timewise but I do appreciate your effort to debug my half-convinced (but 100% wished) belief in some sort of UR. Some sort because I in the meantime noticed that even in UR there is quite some diversity. As to your question, if someone wants something from you and you don't know the origin and intend why he/she asks it you might make the wrong choice. I don't believe I have to explain that. Likewise, if we don't understand our origin (why God created us) we might see some of His ways in the wrong way. Salvation could be one of those issues. What if we were stupidly seduced in the satanic rebellion ourselves and Earth is God's merciful bootcamp? It's a horrible thought and it would change my view on certain things radically.
He once was perfect in all his ways He once was blameless in his ways from the day he was created, till unrighteousness was found in him [Ezek 28:11-19] before he became satan. I meant that from his perspective to accuse God as heartless and unforgiving glossing over his sin. I don't necessarily imply that, more that it took the heavenly creatures by surprise including the far reaching consequences. That's why Col 1:19 is so important. First of all, it's the heavenly creatures + the whole human race. Sure, God doesn't have to proof anything [Isa 29:16, Rom 9:19-21, Isa 55:8-9]. On the other hand maybe God does not like to be seen as a dictator, unforgiving, the creatures He has created and chosen to spend eternity with Him doubting His righteousness. Maybe that's not even a maybe.
#4. So the answer is yes ? #5. Is it fair (righteous) of God that we must live with the negative consequences because the sin of someone else? Death, suffering, sickness.
Sure, but that is a different kind of choice than the one in the garden. Adam and Eve had the choice of trusting God or not, not of choosing door 'A' or 'B' to win a prize, so I don't think the origin or intention is all that important in this case. Isn't it odd? Adam Can you give an example of a misunderstanding of our origin (within a Christian framework) that would affect our salvation? Not following?
Sure, I could elaborate, with pleasure actually. I know you at times like to hold your cards to your chest, I believe (although I am not complete sure) you in the past even have said so. Can you encourage me and say something about the unanswered questions [one] and [two] first?
Sure (sorry, missed these): a) Re: 1 Colossians 1:20. I'm seeing a discussion about God's sovereignty, not about salvation. We have again (as with Romans and 1 Corinthians) an instance where Paul is writing a letter of encouragement, and v.15 - 19 place v20 in its proper context. Paul is talking about Jesus as sovereign, as the one who reconciles creation, but I don't see Paul saying anything about salvation. That is, until we get to v21 - 23: 21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. It strikes me as odd for Paul to be teaching universal salvation in v20, only then to effectively warn the Colossians in v23 to 'continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel of you have heard'. If Paul were teaching UR then this is an unnecessary encouragement. (Life sucks because of your Christian belief? Give it up. God will save you in the end. -- this is UR taken to it's proper end.) b) Re: #4. I think it was God's will that Adam and Eve be given a scenario where they could demonstrate their love and trust for God - or not. I have no problem if that scenario came about through some means of temptation, but I would not say that it was God's will that Adam and Eve fail in their test. Re: #5. I don't know what 'fair' means, so I'll swap out 'fair' for 'just' or 'righteous', perhaps? I don't understand why the sin of two individuals means separation for the entire race, but I don't think it's unfair, or unjust, or unrighteous for us to have to deal with the consequences of some idiotic decisions who knows how long ago. God's had to deal with the consequences as well, particularly through the atonement, so I don't think we're in a situation where God has taken a step back and we've been left alone.
A couple of thoughts on this - #1. v23 does not necessarily has to be about salvation, in fact the word is not there. The reconciliation is (remains) granted (keep in mind that Christ will reconcile all) but the goal of reconciliation (v22b) is no longer. #2. The word "all". It's a terrible word. Matt 3:5 - Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him [John the Baptist] All simply means a lot here. Matt 4:24 - So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, Same story, a lot. etc. Meaning, when does "all" really means "all"? Part of the common hyperbole in those days? So as you can see I can also make complicated things even harder #3. A provoking thought as last point. In the OT there is no real concept of hell and the need for salvation, this is typically NT teaching. Thus new. When the OT speaks of salvation it is 99% (I don't dare to say 100) related to this life, not the afterlife. OT salvation is a sort of divine resque Israel from its enemies. What if the early church was UR and it later all changed? Mainstream Judaism certainly is UR. Isa 45:14-end. You keep on using this argument When God created mankind He foreknew that in the end every knee would bow for Him. UR from the beginning. If this is true that puts a different light on the goal of Creation. For instance, where A&E failed, we are here to learn obedience. Which means you can not sin around. point (b) in a different post.
It's true that the word 'salvation' isn't there; however, v23 begins with the conditional 'if', but lacks a closing 'then'. This just means that the preceding versus are the 'then', predicated on the 'if' ('you continue in the faith). The thought in v23 is otherwise incomplete. Are we comfortable saying that God can reconcile everything to Himself, but that does not mean that everything is therefore saved? We should also ask what 'all' means in the full context of Colossians 1: v4: because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all God’s people v15 - 20 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. I think the 'all' is exhaustive. Is that significant (I'm not asking rhetorically)? How do you reconcile the difference, or was Christianity just far too influenced by Paul's apparent Hellenism? An understanding the Jews carried with them well into the 1st century -- wrongly. Who in the early church was UR? Sure you can ('sin around'), because in the end you'll be fine, ultimately. If we want to believe that God will save everyone, then we have to allow that a person could live the worst life imaginable and still 'make it' (even if he smells a bit like smoke). There is no impetus to learn obedience if the result regardless is salvation.
Reply to post #30 from KG. I fear it's going to be long hence no quoting. Preamble: John 5:42 - But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. Matt 5:20 - For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. So this is a brainstorm session about God's love and God's righteousness. And the central theme is the creation account, the why of it and the fall looking through the glasses of what I understand about God's love and God's righteousness. The emphasis is on "I" since I learned long ago there is a lot of diversity among God's childeren on the (what I think are the 2 main attributes of God), His Love and His Righteousness. So when I read the story of the Fall I can't help that it reads as 2 naive people with no concept about right and wrong (good and evil) that are given a simple commandment not to eat from one tree in the garden and it really makes me wonder if they understood the consequence (death) as it is reasonable to assume they never saw death before. Reasonable because a) that's how the ancients to whom the story was revealed didn't think in 21th century terms that perhaps animal death was always presemt or b) the Garden was seen as a special place (without death). Then the devil appears on the scene (allowed by God) and those 2 naive people were no match for him. Only after their disobedience their eyes were opened and they became aware of right and wrong (good and evil) and that their disobedience was a sin. They had no understanding before. Not after God opened their eyes. Then the punishment follows and it is an incredible harsh one, driven out of that special place the Garden into a world outside that isn't safe and full of dangers, wild animals not (perhaps no longer) eating vegetables and fruit but flesh, no more direct contact with God, Eva holding in the lifeless body of Abel in her arms then understanding what God meant with death. They must have cried a million tears. In the end they were responsible. Also responsible for the death of all their off spring. As for an anology (and no anology is perfect) I take the example of an infant. At what age becomes an infant aware of right and wrong? When you say to an infant "don't" and the infant (still) has no concept of right and wrong, can you punish it when it doesn't obey your "don't"? And to what extent. And the consequence of their disobedience goes a lot further. Currently over 100 billion had to face death, that billions of them will end up in the Lake of Fire, what a burden to live with? Realizing all this kind of philosophical arguments it has made me wonder how compatible the punishment of A&E together with consequences for the total offspring (who did not had the same chance as A&E) is with God's Love and His Righteousness. Does the absence giving everybody the same chance as A&E imply something? God warned Adam he would die, but the actual punishment was much more than that, had direct consequences also. Matt 22:37 - And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. Well, that's what I am trying to do, with my mind understanding the love and righteousness of God in the story of the garden and I fail to see it. Unless..... there is an happy end for everybody. Then everything fits. For many with loads of needless suffering in the LOF and with weeping and gnashing of teeth until they finally surrender to King Jesus. The great divorce comes to mind from C.S. Lewis, eventually everyone will be not able to withstand the love of God. As predicted, longwinded.
Only this one for the moment due to lack of time. I think Scripture is very clear about it - 4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. Those who do end up in the LOF. In UR the LOF doesn't have to be the end of it.
Any time 'in' the LOF is nullified by eventual eternal salvation, if in fact everyone is eventually saved. Salvation then becomes more about avoiding the LOF than anything else, e.g. learning obedience.
Obedience Then Samuel said, “Does the LORD take pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as he does in obedience? Certainly, obedience is better than sacrifice; “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. [Matt 7:21] “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. though he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, You are my friends if you do what I command you. “What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. 30 And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Learning obedience (here or in the LOF) can be seen as a goal in itself, the ruling out of a second revolt. One conclusion of Matt 7:21 is that heaven is only inhabited with obedient people.