Why God Allowed the Fall

My daughter stunned me. People ask, "Why did God allow the Fall and evil?" as though the existence of evil disproves the existence of God. The typical answer is a rather vague, "God has a higher purpose."

My daughter asked, "Do you think what God does for us in salvation is greater than what Adam and Eve had before the Fall?" The thought process behind that question is profound! I'll draw out some of the details.

Before, the Fall, we were merely God's creatures. Made in God's image, yes, but still creatures, earthly. From Adam's and Eve's perfection flowed no logical need for improvement. As Adam and Eve were created, that is all we would ever be: creatures.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." John 12:24

In John 12:24, Jesus spoke primarily of His own impending death, yet in verses 25 and 26, He clearly applied the principle to His followers. The principle applies not only to individuals, but also to humankind.

Namely, our death in Adam created the need for a re-creation that opened a path to our becoming something greater than mere creatures.

Through our death in Adam and our rebirth in Christ, God transforms us into His sons and joint heirs with Christ. He makes our final state more glorious now and more rewarding for us in heaven; as well as more glorifying to, and enjoyable for, Himself

Thus, we have the higher purpose that motivated God to permit, and even ordain, such ultimate evils as the Fall and the murder of God the Son. Evil in the world is not evidence of no god; but rather, is evidence of a higher purpose, and therefore, evidence of God Himself.

Subtle Distinctions between Interpreting and Twisting the Bible

Commentary on

3 Subtle Distinctions Between Demons and Fallen Angels

Charisma Magazine

8:00AM EDT 7/25/2016

David Diga Hernandez, "marked by a distinctive presence of the Holy Spirit, miracles, healing and salvation..., a unique and emerging spiritual leader...."

I assume you've read at least the first section of Evangelist Hernandez' article, linked above. Otherwise, my comments won't make much sense.

Evangelist Hernandez' first point reasons that because a demon desires something, he needs it, and because he needs it, he must have a nature that differs from that of a fallen angel who does not need it. (Cough! Cough!) Drug addicts think they need drugs, but does that mean they are not homo sapiens? (Sounds a lot like the left-wing idea that "identifying" as something turns you into that thing.)

Most of the arguments for the first difference rest on the conclusion the author draws from his first scriptural argument, so let's look at that more closely.

First, Genesis 6:4 simply says giants existed; it does not say that the former giants or the latter giants came from the unions of "sons of God" and "daughters of men." That is something the author reads into it. If giants had already come into being without the mixed unions, then mixed unions were not necessary for the giants to continue existing later.

Second, if giants lived earlier and we assume they reproduced, doesn't it make sense that they would live later? So again, it is not necessary for the giants to have come from the mixed unions. Third, the children of mixed unions are called "mighty men which were of old, men of renown." The text does not call them giants. One has to add preconceptions in order to read the text the way the author does.

The author then equates the "sons of God" who "came in unto the daughters of men" with those in Jude 6 -- the relevant parts of which he conveniently does not quote. Jude 6 refers to "angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling...." It takes an enormous leap to equate leaving the "proper dwelling" (probably heaven) with taking on human form and reproducing with women. Regardless of whether the author is right, it would be wrong to base further doctrine on such weak inferences.

What the author claims could have happened (I doubt it), but it takes a lot of leaps and insertions to force the biblical testimony to support it. The plain sense of the association between giants and mixed unions is that they happened at the same time. When we read, "In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah," we do not infer any cause-and-effect relationship between Zechariah's priesthood and Herod's kingship. Neither should we infer such relationships in Genesis 6:4.

I find such sloppy interpretation to be rampant in the church, concerning far more critical topics, especially among the movement that claims superior "leading" and that substitutes such "leading" for reading. Praise God for his mercy and grace when we stray off the hermeneutical trail and ride our hobby horses across the pages of His word.