Why didnt God send Christ right after Adam and Eve sinned?

One of my friends asked this question on his Facebook page. What’s a good response to this?

“but in the fullness of time, God sent His Son.” -Gal. 4:4

William Lane Craig has the answer in this short video.


Hope this helps, God Bless!

This whole argument that Christ was sent 'too early" or “too late” is basically “Heads I win, tails you lose.” Basically, if Christ was sent “too late”, they’d say, “What about the people that came before Jesus?”, and if he was sent “too early”, they’d say, “Why didn’t Jesus come when people could videotape Him rather than a time where all we have is writings of him?”

I would say that God has had a Plan since before creation itself and God’s Plan is unfolding before our very eyes just as God has planned God’s Plan to unfold, therefore God became Incarnate at the exact moment that God had this event planned for.

In all honesty, I think that an answer like that would not go over very well. It opens that proverbial can of worms (questions, inconsistencies). Many have been or are being discussed right here.

Humankind needed time, time to struggle with the outcome of Adam’s decision, of Adam’s sin: a world where God was effectively removed from the role of supreme being for man; where man, or whatever the cat drug in, would take on that role, with more sin being the result as man did what was right in his own eyes, sin flourishing in his brave new world. God in His mercy began His plan of salvation early on, revealing Himself as man was able to receive it, and when the time was ripe, making a covenant with man, giving him His laws, through a chosen people, so they could then know about sin and so enter into a new drama: the struggle with trying to oppose sin within their own lives. And a lesson was meant to be learned by this struggle over the ensuing centuries: that man could not triumph over sin, could not obey the law, on his own, by his own efforts; he would always fail to hit the mark, would end up falling away. He could not succeed in reversing, within himself, the rebellion which Adam first opted for.

Again, when the time was ripe in human history, God deemed it necessary to now enter the scene Himself, to establish a new covenant, not to force man to change-something He’s never been willing to do since the beginning, with His dealings with Adam & Eve-but to show us the way to obedience/righteousness, to triumph over sin and the death it brought into our world, and promise to help us do the same as we become willing to subjugate ourselves to Him again, reestablishing the communion which was shattered by the Fall, meaning to truly becoming the God of man again as per the New Covenant prophecy of Jer 31:34, His Spirit dwelling within whereupon He could then write His laws on our hearts and place them in our minds, according to the same prophecy, verse 33.

The cross, the Atonement, the resurrection, has as its purpose, the drawing of man, as he becomes ready to accept it, to the reality, goodness, trustworthiness, and unconditional love of God for him, and so calling man back to communion, ultimately fulfilling the greatest commandment where man comes to love God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. This is where our justice or righteousness is realized, only possible with God, never apart from Him. This what we’re here to learn, in time, God having made His universe in a “state of journeying” to perfection according to the catechism.

The current mania for speed is now extended from instant coffee and instant photos to instant redemption…

“I will send the simple to confound the wise”.

Think that this might be one of the reasons why what I wrote might “not go over very well”?

Because there wouldn’t have been anyone to hold a trial against him and have him tortured and crucifyed. Patience was needed. There had to be a populated Middle East first! Because we know he had to be born there!

:smiley: :thumbsup:

a person could google: catholic discipline of the secret. To me, part of the reason why God did things the way He did is tied to the gradualness, process and development of one human life, birth to old age. 1 Cor. 3:1-2 milk to drink, not meat.

God may have selected the Chosen people, the Jews, for that same reason, 1 Cor. 3:1-2 milk to drink, not meat.

gradualness, process and development.

I would think the biggest inconsistency for a deist would be that God would bother to create the universe and then not show up at all.

I do not find it to be inconsistent or troubling.

This seems to be where you are mainly inconsistent.

When you say God is indifferent to his creation you are using human language to describe a human state of consciousness … indifference.

The only paradigm we have for judging consistency or troubling behavior is the human paradigm. So when you say it seems consistent with God to be indifferent to his creation, you are violating the only paradigm by which you can judge the inconsistent or troubling aspect of God’s behavior toward his children … the human paradigm.

So an indifferent God can never be really indifferent. He can only be heartless and cruel,
just as any human parent cannot be really indifferent to his children without being heartless and cruel.

So a deist is a contradiction unto himself. God cannot turn his back on the universe without being heartless and cruel, which is hardly indifferent.

Yes? :wink:

No…I am using the only common language we have to describe the aspects of our world. I wish I had some other words to describe a very simple principle. God does not control or interfere with our live either as individuals or in total. We can call that indifference as a means of attempting to establish a common foundation of understanding.
One thing God most certainly is not is human, in any way that I would describe human.
Now, if you want to talk cruel and heartless, let’s open the OT.

I’m confused. If God as you know and believe in him, upon pain of eternal separation of him was never God in the flesh Jesus, God who became man, then what am I wasting my time studying the Catholic faith for?
Are you denying that God became man in the flesh?
I am confused by this comment. Please clarify for me. My understanding is that God did become flesh.
Do you have some new Catholic teaching I don’t have?

My beliefs are in no way part of Catholic theology, I am a Deist, so I do not believe that God became flesh, nor do I believe that my soul is in danger for holding my beliefs. God, in the Deist belief system, is the great Creator God, but allows that creation to take its own path without His intervention.

You must follow you own course.

A good response to this is to ask the question, “Why didn’t God create Adam and Eve before he created Satan?”

Neither question seems relevant to understanding the mind of God.

God’s ways are not our ways; and to enter the mind of God is simply impossible except insofar as he choose to reveal himself to us.

Why should we know? People can pose many unanswerable questions and if they don’t get the answer (that only God can give) they might be inclined to disbelieve. If your friend doesn’t have kids tell him he should have kids as your answer.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.