The Son of Man returns with and for his people

[ewq1938]

You are taking scriptures out of context. Paul is talking about matters of salvation, and in that context, there is neither Jew nor Greek.


Look here.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

What this is saying is there is no "higher or lower" people if you are Christian. All are considered equal.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm not at this point arguing biblical interpretation with you--just pointing out how you view things differently from others. Your view has a label--Replacement Theology, or Supersessionism.

My view does not have that label since I don't have national Israel being replaced by spiritual Israel. How many times do I need to tell you this? Let me tell you what I believe instead of you trying to tell me what I believe.

Those who call you RT and miscommunicate what you actually believe may be abusive, but the term itself is not. It is just a tool to discriminate between what you believe and what others believe.

You mean what your straw man believes and what others believe? That term applies to those who believe spiritual Israel has replaced national Israel, right? That is NOT what I believe, Randy. I believe spiritual Israel and national Israel are completely separate entities. If one replaced the other then the other would no longer exist and there would be only one Israel, but I don't claim that national Israel no longer exists and I claim that there are two Israels.

This is why it's called "Replacement Theology," because you think that "spiritual Israel consists of all believers, Jew and Gentile."

Doesn't it? Who do you think spiritual Israel consists of, if not all believers, Jew and Gentile? While answering the question, keep in mind that spiritual Israel is not national Israel, according to Paul in Romans 9:6-8.

That is a redefinition of the standard meaning of "Israel." It is a metaphorical usage of the same--not a literal definition.

That expression, "a holy nation," applied to the nation Israel, and not to a metaphorical use of the term to apply to the international Church. It is your belief that it applies to the "International Church" that constitutes a redefinition of 'Israel," a non-literal meaning of the term.

It seems that you, just like CadyandZoe, did not actually read 1 Peter 2:9 in context.

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

It can't be said of the nation Israel that they were never before the people of God, so the "holy nation" Peter referenced here can't possibly be the nation of Israel. Notice that it is also "a royal priesthood". Who did John indicate is part of a royal priesthood?

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Who was John writing to here? Jew and Gentile believers in seven churches in the ancient Roman province of Asia. And he said to them that Jesus Christ, who is "the ruler of the kings of the earth", "has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father". That sounds like a royal priesthood to me, how about you? And who did he indicate is part of that? Jew and Gentile believers in the church.

You are just not getting it!

LOL. The feeling is mutual.

I'm not telling you that you don't have definition #1 for "Israel," namely that of a literal, physical nation. I've said you believe that a number of posts ago. What I am saying, however, is that your #2 definition for "Israel" is a metaphorical use of the term, which normally would be acceptable except that you apply it in places where definition #1 would normally apply. That's what renders your belief system RT, regardless of the fact you also hold to definition #1.

And how am I doing that exactly? You can see in Romans 9:6-8 that Paul indicates that the Israel, of which not all of the nation of Israel are part, does not consist of people based on the nation they descended from, but rather consists of people who are the children of God and children of the promise (thereby making them Abraham's spiritual children), can't you? Who are those who are the children of God and children of the promise who are counted as Abraham's seed? Let me give you a hint:

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

National Salvation would depend on one's nationhood if God promised that anybody from the U.S. should be saved. To fulfill that promise God would have to save somebody with US citizenship!

Okay.....?

But you're charging God with racism and discrimination if God should promise to save a nation with a particular race?

Well, of course I would because that would contradict one of His character traits. Do you somehow not know that God is not a respecter of persons (does not show favoritism in relation to salvation based on one's ethnicity or nationality)? Have you never read this:

Acts 10:34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.

Why would that be, unless it left other races out? In this case, the promise of National Salvation for Israel does *not* leave other nations and races out!

Why would God save that nation but not other nations as well? That would violate His character of not being a respecter of persons.

God did promise Abraham a nation of his own descendants who would share in his faith. Do you then charge God with being a racist?

He didn't promise Abraham that all of his natural descendants would share in his faith. He did promise Abraham that he would have spiritual descendants who would all share in his faith (Galatians 3:26-29).

No, I'm treating only your #2 definition of Israel, which changes what should've remained the #1 definition of "Israel." Instead, you add a 2nd definition and apply it where the #1 definition should've been applied.

LOL. I wonder if you have ever read Romans 9:6-8 objectively. I do not get that impression at all. Are you trying to tell me that the nation of Israel are God's children and are children of the promise? Do you just ignore the part where Paul said "it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children"?

Can you break Romans 9:6-8 down for me and show me exactly how you interpret it similarly to how I did that? That would be very helpful.

Again, my purpose here is not to argue our theological differences, but to point out why Replacement Theology is used in your case.

Just so you know, you have completely failed at providing a convincing argument to indicate that it's a term that should be used to describe what I believe.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I believe the Law not just lapsed, but failed. God intended for it to fail, because the Law was in effect a confirmation of God's judgment in the Garden of Eden.

I think this is just a case of semantics here rather than us disagreeing about this. Yes, in a sense, it failed, but it was meant to fail. So, in that sense, it succeeded in doing what God intended for it to do. How's that? Can we at least agree on that?

Just a single sin exludes one from the Tree of Life. And for all practical purposes, Sin is communicated in both ourselves and our descendants. The net result is that a little leaven leavens the whole bunch. A nation starts with some sin, and ultimately becomes very sinful. The nation under the Law of Moses was destined to fail, not because God wanted Israel to fail, but only to show that all men sin and need atonement.

God always had a backup plan in the event the Law failed as a system. Even the Law was promised to have a backup to re-start it when it failed. You can read that in Leviticus and in Deuteronomy. Failure was judged to be when the super-majority of the population became so irresponsible with the covenant that it was effectively dead and the population was deported from their land. But God remedied this by promising them restoration contingent on their willingness to start the covenant back up again, obedient to its demands.

In the case of Israel's failure in the time of Christ, that was an apostasy, a deportation, and a complete failure under the Law. But this time, the backup plan took place through Christ's atonement, rendering all temporal atonements under the Law unnecessary and redundant.

I cringe at you calling Christ's atonement "the backup plan" when in reality it was Plan A and not Plan B. Calling it "the backup plan" implies that it was Plan B rather than Plan A. But, anyway, I don't want to get bogged down talking about this kind of thing.

General statements showing God's exasperation with Israel's repeated failings was not evidence of Israel's inability to *ever* obey the Law!

What does this mean? They could never obey the law because, as I pointed out already, disobeying even one commandment makes you guilty of disobeying all of them (James 2:10). No one, except Christ, is capable of living up to that standard.

This is just as true for the nations embracing Christianity as it was for Israel under the Law. There will always ultimately be failure, but in the meantime there is also the potential for obedience and blessing.

I don't know what you're intending to say here. Seems like you're contradicting yourself, but maybe I'm just not getting your point here.

I've backed up everything I said with Scriptures. You can go back and re-read, if you wish? If there's any point I didn't back up with Scriptures, let me know?

One thing it would be nice for you to do is back up what you've said about Romans 9:6-8 by actually quoting the scripture and showing exactly how you interpret it. And the same goes for a verse like 1 Peter 2:9. It appears that you just made assumptions about what that verse says without looking at the context. So, can you show me in the text itself where it gives any indication that it's talking about the nation of Israel when it refers to "a holy nation"?

Our disagreement about what those Scriptures mean is likely where the problem is?

Mostly, I suppose, but you say a lot of things without giving scriptural support as well. Just re-read your own posts and look at how much of them consist of your own words without any references to scriptures that support your claims.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

False. He is addressing the Church, using a figurative description unique to the Church.

1 Peter 2
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Exactly. A holy priesthood? That reminds me of this passage which is very clearly referring to the Church:

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Built up a spiritual house? That reminds me of this passage:

Ephesians 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

It should be obvious to everyone that the "spiritual house", "holy priesthood" and "holy nation" that Peter wrote about in 1 Peter 2 is the church, and yet...

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The rendering of 2 definitions for "Israel" and then conflating them results in a change in definition #1 to definition #2. The fact is, definition #2 is different from definition #1. The fact you think they should be separated into 2 definitions does not remove the fact that others do not agree with it. To me, this constitutes a change in definition.

Stop being so vague and tell me exactly how I am doing what you are claiming. I need less of your words and more scripture to back them up or else you are going to put me to sleep. So, please break Romans 9:6-8 down for me and show me how exactly you think I'm doing what you're claiming that I'm doing.

Let's say I have 2 definitions for "cave," the normal one, meaning a hole in a granite mountain, and another one, a "man cave," or a place in the basement for doing my own thing. That's all acceptable and good, to have 2 definitions for the same word. But when I start stating that in every place I reference a hole in the side of a hill, I infer or say that it is a "man cave," I'm confusing the definition of what an actual "cave" is.

So, we're talking about Israel here, obviously. And you're implying here that I'm taking every reference to Israel to be Spiritual Israel. Which is false.

That's what you're doing with the word "Israel."

No, I am not. That is a blatant lie. Instead, I see both the nation of Israel and Spiritual Israel being referenced and I'm explaining the difference between the two.

You're replacing it where it belongs as a literal nation and trying to impose your 2nd definition on it, referring to the International Church. In doing so, you're effectively *replacing* one definition with another in cases where that should not be done. It certainly can be done in certain situations. But you do it in situations where many others believe literal "Israel" is in view.

Such as? Stop being so vague. Am I asking too much by asking you to be more specific about what you're talking about exactly here?

I don't know why you get so worked up about it?

Very easy for you to say because you're not the one who is having his view misrepresented. Do you not care if your view gets misrepresented and mislabeled? I'm sure you do.

You just seem unable to accept that people brand your belief with a particular name and then try to affix *what you actually believe* to it, in contrast to how others would see it.

Why would you label what I believe in such a way that doesn't represent what I actually believe? That makes no sense.

It's a difference of opinion that has existed for perhaps 2000 years. Why be ashamed of it, if that's what you truly believe?

LOL. I'm not ashamed of what I believe whatsoever and you know that. I think I make that quite clear. So, what in the world are you talking about here? It has nothing to do with being ashamed of what I believe (Why would I be? Are you serious?), it has to do with me not liking when my view gets misrepresented and mislabeled. I will not apologize for disliking that.

 

[covenantee]

God always had a backup plan

No He didn't.

Acts 2
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

It was ever, always, and only Plan A.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No He didn't.

Acts 2
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

It was ever, always, and only Plan A.

Amen. There was no backup plan because there was no chance of Plan A not succeeding.

 

[ScottA]

Well yes, the created world takes place in time, whereas God exists outside of time, before, during, and after it. He sees the whole creation event as being resolved internally, while He exists outside of it determining its outcome, as well as the parameters within which it reaches its outcome.

But the coming of the Lord with and for His Saints involves us in time, whether or not we've gone to be with the Lord. The eternal nature of God may render us eternal, but it does not render us "uncreated."

And so, I believe we will retain the element of time for all eternity, while God continues outside of it, having already determined its end, as well as our existence within it, even if ultimately resolved.

I still have to understand whether Christ comes back with saints or whether he comes back for saints. Both appear to be true, but do they take place at the same time? That's the question.

Your rationale is still tainted with elements of time, which, no, don't actually exist inside time while God is outside time. That is just one way of wrapping your mind around it that may seem to work from the less than complete or objective vantage point from inside what has yet to all be revealed...but that is not really the way it all works.

The situation is in fact revealed in God's word...referring to all that is written "as the words of a book"...which do not actually internally unfold as time in its own sphere while God is outside looking on; but rather is first written and then read (just as it is with all books)..then revealing all that already is and was when it was first written--for it all exists in the mind of God the Author in whom there is "no shadow of turning" (no actual time). Thus, time is more of a form of media that reveals all that was 'before the foundation of the world" (which is the writing of the would-be book), which only comes to the characters therein "line upon line, here a little there a little" as it is supernaturally read by the Author in 4D living color. Which does not continue, but just as it is written, comes to an "end."

Applying this to the stated dilemma of "whether Christ comes back with saints or whether he comes back for saints"-- the answer is: "Yes, and in Him Amen."

 

[ScottA]

No He didn't.

Acts 2
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

It was ever, always, and only Plan A.

While this is true in the terms within the sphere of time...there was never actually a plan per se, but rather all things were "written" then revealed as if read after the fact. For a more complete explanation, I refer you also to post #128.

 

[covenantee]

While this is true in the terms within the sphere of time...there was never actually a plan per se, but rather all things were "written" then revealed as if read after the fact. For a more complete explanation, I refer you also to post #128.

"Plan" definition:
to have in mind : INTEND

Sounds like a plan to me.

 

[ScottA]

"Plan" definition:
to have in mind : INTEND

Sounds like a plan to me.

Fair enough for now. However, just as there is no forethought of "intent" in "I am"....well, I'll leave it at that.

 

[covenantee]

Fair enough for now. However, just as there is no forethought of "intent" in "I am"....well, I'll leave it at that.

But there is in determinate counsel and foreknowledge.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Your rationale is still tainted with elements of time, which, no, don't actually exist inside time while God is outside time. That is just one way of wrapping your mind around it that may seem to work from the less than complete or objective vantage point from inside what has yet to all be revealed...but that is not really the way it all works.

The situation is in fact revealed in God's word...referring to all that is written "as the words of a book"...which do not actually internally unfold as time in its own sphere while God is outside looking on; but rather is first written and then read (just as it is with all books)..then revealing all that already is and was when it was first written--for it all exists in the mind of God the Author in whom there is "no shadow of turning" (no actual time). Thus, time is more of a form of media that reveals all that was 'before the foundation of the world" (which is the writing of the would-be book), which only comes to the characters therein "line upon line, here a little there a little" as it is supernaturally read by the Author in 4D living color. Which does not continue, but just as it is written, comes to an "end."

Applying this to the stated dilemma of "whether Christ comes back with saints or whether he comes back for saints"-- the answer is: "Yes, and in Him Amen."

Well, at least you gave me an answer. Since we are creatures created for time, how on earth can we think outside of it? But God has given us a sense of Himself, even though He is beyond anything we know. So, perhaps there is a way in which we can perceive God as timeless?

 

[Randy Kluth]

No He didn't.

Acts 2
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

It was ever, always, and only Plan A.

God didn't plan for anybody to sin. In fact, He asked man *not* to sin. So when we did sin, God planned to bring justice to the matter, as well as restoration. That was in fact a "backup plan," as I see it.

 

[covenantee]

God didn't plan for anybody to sin. In fact, He asked man *not* to sin. So when we did sin, God planned to bring justice to the matter, as well as restoration. That was in fact a "backup plan," as I see it.

But He knew that man would sin.

And He had Plan A ready for it.

The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8

No other plan necessary.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Stop being so vague and tell me exactly how I am doing what you are claiming. I need less of your words and more scripture to back them up or else you are going to put me to sleep. So, please break Romans 9:6-8 down for me and show me how exactly you think I'm doing what you're claiming that I'm doing.

I already explained things, with Scriptures.

So, we're talking about Israel here, obviously. And you're implying here that I'm taking every reference to Israel to be Spiritual Israel.

No, I didn't say that. I said you applied "Spiritual Israel" in places where "Natural Israel" was more properly indicated. That confuses things.

I never said you do this in *every place* that "Israel" is used. As I clearly said, you have 2 Israels and apply both of them in different places. So obviously, you don't use "Spiritual Israel" in every place that "Israel" is mentioned.

Which is false.


No, I am not. That is a blatant lie. Instead, I see both the nation of Israel and Spiritual Israel being referenced and I'm explaining the difference between the two.

As I said, you've misrepresented what I said. Of course, you have a rationale for interpreting "Israel" in some places as "Natural Israel," and for interpreting "Israel" as "Spiritual Israel" in other places. It just isn't consistent with how many people see it. Many people see "Israel" as meaning "Natural Israel" where you deem it to refer to "Spiritual Israel."

Very easy for you to say because you're not the one who is having his view misrepresented.

As I just showed you, you've completely misrepresented me! You said I accused you of inferring "Spiritual Israel" in "every place" that "Israel" is mentioned. I never never said that!

You said, "And you're implying here that I'm taking every reference to Israel to be Spiritual Israel." Obviously, that's inaccurate, as I just showed you. But I'm not going to get bent out of shape over it.

Do you not care if your view gets misrepresented and mislabeled? I'm sure you do.

That's the nature of discussions and disagreements, brother. We have to work out how to say things in the context of arguments over words.

Why would you label what I believe in such a way that doesn't represent what I actually believe? That makes no sense.

It actually does make sense to me. In the places where you apply "Spiritual Israel" to "Israel" it sometimes doesn't belong. That's where you're "replacing" Natural Israel with Spiritual Israel in a way that is illegitimate from the vantage point of many other people. Sor your view conflicts with their view, and your view would more naturally be called "Replacement Theology" than theirs would be.

They/We aren't replacing Natural Israel with anything other than Natural Israel. In effect, we're not replacing it at all! But your 2nd definition for "Israel" does do that in some cases where it appears to be an illegitimate imposition on the natural meaning.

Of course, you would disagree because that is your position. But you shouldn't be upset about the label, nor the characterization, since that's exactly how you see it. At your own words, you see "2 Israels."

LOL. I'm not ashamed of what I believe whatsoever and you know that. I think I make that quite clear. So, what in the world are you talking about here? It has nothing to do with being ashamed of what I believe (Why would I be? Are you serious?), it has to do with me not liking when my view gets misrepresented and mislabeled. I will not apologize for disliking that.

It isn't difficult to see that when someone is annoyed by being characterized as believing what they really do believe that they think the label is an insult, an attempt at treating their beliefs in a derogatory way. I can assure you that is not my intention, since I was raised that way, and since in studying Church history I recognized that much of Church history had that perspective among some very good people.

I'll tell you a true story. Way back in the mid-70s I got myself into what I believe was a Christian cult--some good Christians don't believe it is a cult. Its detractors called it "the Local Church," because it believed the true church should number only one in each town or city, uniting all Christians as one.

When I moved to CA, I intended to join them because its leader was Witness Lee, a known associate of Watchman Nee, who I loved, having read a number of his books. But when I got to Anaheim I couldn't find them right away, and called them. I asked the person on the other end of the phone, "Are you the Local Church?," and the person hung up on me.

I didn't know that they considered the name "the Local Church" a term of insult. And yet, that's what they actually believe, that each city should have one local church, and that's how they set up their own churches in every town.

Did you know the early Christians were called "little Christs" as a term of insult by their enemies? But Christians proudly wore the label, because we're proud to be "little Christs." The name is "Christian," I believe?

 

[Randy Kluth]

But He knew that man would sin.

And He had Plan A ready for it.

No other plans necessary.

Yes, we disagree on that. I don't believe God knows everything. He doesn't always know how we will react to His word. He plainly gave us the option to do at least A, B, or C. He knows every possibility and has an answer for every eventuality, but He has left up to us how we respond to His word.

I do believe it's just too easy to say, "God knows everything." But that's just listing an attribute to our concept of an all-powerful Creator without actually knowing what limitations He has imposed upon Himself without subtracting from His infinite abilities. Is He infinite enough to impose ignorance upon Himself? Can He make a rock so big that He can't lift it? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I'll be honest and say I don't know anything for sure when it comes to what God knows or doesn't know. I just don't believe it's logical that He foreknew the eventuality of sin when He plainly commanded man *not* to sin! But it's certainly likely that He had a backup plan to correct any disobedience to His word.

God's word cannot be frustrated. Since He made Man for Himself, not even Man's failure can keep God from succeeding with Man. He will redeem some of them and reject those who come into being outside of His plans.

 

[ewq1938]

God didn't plan for anybody to sin. In fact, He asked man *not* to sin. So when we did sin, God planned to bring justice to the matter, as well as restoration. That was in fact a "backup plan," as I see it.

God of course knew man would sin and even had a punishment already in place.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

[Truth7t7]

In Romans 11 he also says that IF (conditional) they (the unbelieving part broken off from God's elect nation a.k.a Israel) will repent of their unbelief, they will be grafted in again.

God doesn't have an elect Nation in the middle east called Israel as you suggest

Only the remnant elect Jew will be saved by God's forekowledge and added to (The Church), "National Israel Is Blinded"

"Israel Hath Not Obtained"

"The Election Hath Obtained" The Church

Romans 11:2-8KJV
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.

 

[Randy Kluth]

God of course knew man would sin and even had a punishment already in place.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

I already said that no matter the outcome, God knows all of the possibilities and has a fix for any event. His word corrects every situation that opposes that word.

Death is a corrective to the possibility of sin in Man, when confronted with the option to obey or not obey, to listen to the Liar or not. God has an answer to any eventuality, but that does not mean He intends or foreknows what will happen, or that Man will disobey Him.

Why on earth would God ask Man to not eat of the forbidden fruit if He knew that he would do so? God was trying to spare Man from death, but death was there as the solution to the possibility Man would sin.