Where have I ever stated or implied 'that God had adjusted his expectation for mankind "after the fall"'? You've made assumptions about my position and then concluded that I believe God adjusted his expectations for mankind.
Then what's your position, and what exactly did you mean by "after the Fall"? Insofar you don't seem to have any position at all, you're just being antagonistic against mine.
No, it doesn't. There are a number of reasons why people sin, as given throughout the NT.
But history is rhyming, nothing has changed, Judges 21:25 has a new modern name - moral relativism, you know how true that is.
The issue is, there is nothing to support your position. That is my only point.
Or there's everything, a whole biblical narrative, you're just denying it with no point of your own.
Where have I been disrespectful? If you think it is disrespectful when someone points out errors in your reasoning or problems in your theology, then perhaps the Apologetics forum isn't for you.
OK, I adimit I'm wrong on this one, you're not disrespectful, you're just being a coward who just keeps denying and denying. If you don't agree with my theology, why don't you post your own, and then let's put YOUR brilliant theology under the microscope for scrutiny? So far all you've responded is "after the fall", and now you've denied that as well, so what else have you got? If you've got nothing, then perhaps the Apologetics forum isn't for you.
No, I am not. Again, you're making assumptions about what I believe, and I strongly suggest you stop misrepresenting my beliefs.
Then what exactly ARE your beliefs? Again I've seen nothing. Nothing but antagonism. That's not a belief, that's opposition against other people's belief.
That isn't helpful since you're not explaining what Isa. means. Do you mean God has planned out all of human history, that everything that has happened has been according to his plan?
Hey, since you've been so relentlessly and consistently accusing me of misrepresenting your beliefs and making baseless claims, how about YOU explaining to me what this verse means? How about YOU enlighten me with YOUR understanding, follow YOUR train of thoughts, with every word on record, so to eliminate the need for "assumption"?
There is no way to come to that conclusion from what I've said without making assumptions.
Then why did you say that? Now you start to deny yourself?
Again, there is no way to come to that conclusion from what I've said without making assumptions. Do you not believe there was a pre-Fall period of time which was significantly different from the period of time that still continues post-Fall?
Of course I do, but I also believe there's a difference between the garden of Eden and the rest of the world, also, the presence of Satan and his evil angels, according to Rev. 12:9 and Job 1:6. It's not like the "Fall" is a triggering event that directly pulled Satan down to earth. It is a fact that Satan was already in the Garden, Gen. 3:1, and the forbidden fruit contains the knowledge of both good AND evil, not just good, Gen. 2:17, that indicates evil already existed.
Did I make a "whole elaborate argument"?
Idk, go back and check out your own post.
Because you did and continue to do so.
Then how about you make a sound argument with your own counter claim, instead of just accusing me of making assumptions? What makes anything you said more legitimate than an "assumption"? At least I backed my claim with multiple verses, what've you got?
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
...
Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
Rom 5:16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
Rom 5:17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. (ESV)
1Co 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (ESV)
Satan and his angels may have been cast out of heaven to earth--they were sinful beings in the world--but sin itself entered the world through Adam.
"Sin" is disobedience against God, the act of defiance, NOT some kind of evil substance laden in the forbidden fruit like the poisoned apple the evil queen gave to Snow White. Had God given Adam and Eve permission to eat it, it would no longer be considered sin, but God's will.
Again, if you think someone pointing out errors in your reasoning and theology is being an agitator, then maybe the Apologetics forum isn't for you.
Again, if agitation is all you do without any reasoning or theology of your own, then maybe the Apologetics forum isn't for you.
Yes, for believers, and believers are those who follow Christ, whose death was necessary because Adam ate of the tree in the first place. Had he and Eve not eaten of it, there would be no need for a saviour as there would be no sin and evil in the world, and therefore no need to ever eat of the tree.
That's your baseless assumption contrary to what the bible states - "He was in the beginning with God." Nowhere in there remotely suggests that Jesus the Savior, the Son, the second person of the Godhead is a fix for the sin and evil in the world. This is not "supply and demand".
You have yet to show how you have done so without first reading things into the text.
Says you who have read a whole set of "post-Fall" hypothesis into the text, and don't even have the dignity to own it.
Nothing? I proved your whole position to be contradictory and you didn't even bother to address that point. That suggests you see the error of your position, which I suspect is why you have become so agitated.
You've proved nothing, all you've got is your own unbiblical assumptions that undermine Lord Jesus's preeminence and his co-eternal state with God.
There has been nothing condescending or conceited on my part. Maybe you should reconsider posting in this forum.
Or maybe you should take a good look at this remark itself and see how condescending and conceited it is. I don't blame you for your attitude and I'm not "agitated", I just feel sorry for you, man, I've observed that you've grown so accustomed to your condescending and conceited tone that now you have no self awareness of it.
