Adam and the Fall

[Josheb]

Here you appear to affirm a Covenant of Redemption which you later call a human construct.

I do affirm the CoR. The CoR is a man-made doctrine. It is something inferred from scripture, not something scripture explicitly states. I happen to affirm the inferential case, but I also affirm the facts of whole scripture.

So do you mean "the whole point of creation was to be fruitful, multiply, subdue the earth, and rule over it"?

Yes. Sorta. I do not limit God to having one single, solitary purpose but, relevant to this op (which specifies the CoR) the purpose of creation could be said to 1) create a people in whom God's own Spirit dwells and works, and 2) subduing and ruling over the earth and (by extension) all of creation. I believe I mentioned both. I can detail the case for both but did not want to go too far afield of the op.

That would be the command of God for humanity, but I do not see it as the ultimate purpose of creation. They had to be given a command by their Creator in order to obey or disobey it. To say the purpose was the above, would imply utter failure of his purpose the way I see it at the moment.

The problem with that interpretation is that it necessarily holds something to be outside the CoR. That's not possible if the CoR is the defining purpose or goal of creation. It would be like saying Jesus is Lord over everything but that one particular rule God gave. Furthermore, the dominion mandate is part of a divine blessing (not just a command), inherently tied to being a creature in which God dwells and works and care should be taken so as not to suggest dominion can or should be accomplished merely or solely in the flesh (however good and sinless it might have been) or without the tree of life. The earth is a very big place. Even in a good and sinless state the earth was not going to be subdued by two people. The blessing/command specifically entailed multiplying and being fruitful. The implication being there might be multiplying that was not fruitful (or subduing). The blessing/command sets up the prospect of conflict. If there's no possibility of fruitlessness, then that part of the command is unnecessary. Don't just multiply, but multiply fruitfully.

Suppose Adam and Eve had many, many offspring and they, in turn, had many offspring, and so on.... Are we to believe they could conquer the desolation of the entire planet in just their good and sinless flesh? Remember: the earth was desolate and the serpent lived there. It's as I said: the angel is in the details .

I would also include the gospel as part of the multiplying, fruit-bearing, subduing and ruling. This will depend upon a proper understanding of the gospel because many believe the gospel is only about Jesus as Savior and not about Jesus as Lord and King. The dominion mandate was to be realized within the CoR. The means not just any fruit-bearing was acceptable. Not just any subduing or any ruling was acceptable.

f the tree of life hadn't been eaten AND neither had the evil tree, then Adam would have died a good and sinless man and his children would have taken up the dominion mandate where he left off, and if they neglected to either return to Eden to partake from the tree or make sure the tree got planted all over the world so its fruit was available to all everywhere then a series of problems would ensue. Planting the ToL has to be part of the dominion mandate. The CoR has to encompass more than the occurrence of sin.

In what way are you using "extra-biblical construct"?

I'm not making a big deal of it. I am simply saying the CoR is a doctrine. A valid doctrine, but a doctrine, nonetheless. It does replace scripture. I am not suggesting you or anyone else is replacing scripture; I'm just stating the facts.

The ordained fall itself was serving a purpose. Everything in that Garden of Eden was working towards that purpose.

I completely agree and nothing I have posted should be construed in any way to say otherwise.

Now, one can come back with the response prove that the CoR is the purpose of creation.

I am not sure that is correct, but I'll concede the point for now.

But my premise in the OP presumes it, and it is also presumed, and well theologically, exegetically, biblically, supported by Reformed theology. And I have shown where it is found in Scripture. So there is really no point in either your proving your view or me proving mine.

I understand that. I am not disputing the premise the CoR is the purpose of creation. What I said is that the CoR encompasses more than the occurrence of sin, and this is necessarily so because to preicate the CoR (the purpose of creation) solely on sin is to bnecessarily compromise another doctrine; divine aseity. Sound doctrines do not compromise other sound doctrines. In this particular case, God cannot be made dependent on sin.

The CoR as the purpose of creation is the only way there are no contingencies attached to anything that happened in the Garden.

Except for the necessity of sin!

The purpose of creation, I believe is the ultimate destruction of that serpent through the redemption of those born in Adam who his (the serpent's) wiles brought down and yanked away from God.

Yet it has already been acknowledged Adam would have physically died unless he ate from the tree of life. He'd have never accomplished the dominion mandate and even though he'd have potentially died a good and sinless man, he'd still be dead without Christ. Christ is the only way to God. He is the only way to God for any and all humanity, good and sinless, or evil and sinful. Even if Adam had died good and sinless he still would have been corruptible. Corruptible is part of the problem to be solved. That problem is solved only in Christ. Sown mortal and corruptible. Raised immortal and incorruptible only in Christ. In Eden, Christ was present in the tree of life. That condition existed prior to sin's occurrence.


Now..... before we get deeper into these particulars, the matter of the purported red herring must be resolved. I say the dichotomy of a strict yes or no inquiry is a red herring. I say that because there's a third option. Whatever else we discuss, we have to resolve this (according to the tos). The question asked is not a false dichotomy because there aren't aspects of both yes or no that could coexist. Just saying that to clarify the matter. The dichotomy is a strict dichotomy but yes or not are not the only options. The third option is not to limit the CoR to the existence or occurrence of sin. Problems ensue when the CoR is predicated that way. Yes, the covenant the Godhead has with Itself does redeem the world and the elect from sin, but is that all it does? If the answer is, "No, that is not all it does. The Covenant of Redemption does much more than solely save people from sin and its effect thereof," then there's a third option. If that's agreeable, then I will amend my point of view to say the op needs to include that in its inquiry. Otherwise, limiting the inquiry regarding God intending Adam to sin is a false dichotomy. Everything that happens serves the Creator's purpose but that does not mean he intended (designed it, planned it) Adam to sin. It most certainly does not mean the CoR is a plan for sin. God, Jesus, and the HS weren't sitting around asking themselves, "What are we going to do about sin? We better make a plan for that if/when it happens." That's not the correct presupposition undergirding the Covenant of Redemption. God had a plan and a purpose for creation and that plan was going to happen whether or not sin ever occurred.

God did not have to intend sin.

Either acknowledge or disprove that.

 

[Josheb]

The plan is what plays out on earth in time. The Covenant is the purpose of the plan. Nothing can be redeemed unless it first needs to be redeemed. And the entire Bible is one story of Redemption. The covenant was entered into within the Godhead because mankind was going to fall and that because he was ordained to fall, into inescapable sin and need the Creator Christ to redeem him. The culprit in this story is Satan. The hero is Christ. Christ, in his incarnation is the victor by substituting his perfectly righteous humanity for the sinner's corrupted humanity, to satisfy God's justice against those who are sinners. If there were no sinful humans, there would be no one for him to substitute for. No need of the cross, no need of his incarnation, or his death, or his resurrection. And if none of that happens, who is it that still roams around looking for someone to devour?

The Covenant of Redemption does not make God responsible for sin. It does not make God the author of sin. The fact that he ordained Adam to fall and decreed the means of that fall, does not make him the author of sin. It is enough here, to say that he is not the author of sin because according to his aseity he would have to possess sin within himself in order to author it. The CoR does no damage to that. Sin already existed at creation of our world and the prime sinner crawled on his belly like a snake. It wasn't foreknowledge that made a CoR necessary. It was purpose.

I'm going to Dm you because I believe a rule is being violated unawares or unintentionally and I am not supposed to broach that in the thread.

 

[Arial]

I see the multiple posts . I will take up the rest when we've reached some consensus on the premise the Covenant of Redemption is limited to and solely dependent upon the existence of sin - or not. I believe the CoR is not thusly limited (for the reasons already posted).

I don't know what some consensus would look like.

I am not proposing that the Covenant of Redemption is limited to the existence of sin. I am not proposing any limits. Nor am I proposing that it is dependent upon sin for its existence. I am proposing that getting rid of sin is its purpose. Redemption implies a need of being redeemed.

More importantly, because I have provided an explanation for how and why the CoR is NOT limited to the existence of sin my prior appraisal of the question as a red herring has been provided. Some consensus must be reached on this.

It has been handled by staff after my turning it over for other mods to adjudicate. See post #2.

 

[Arial]

@Josheb My third maybe fourth response to your single post only covered the first paragraph and I am also not even a quarter of the way through your post #14. And I see another similar in length one awaits in Post 21. If I were not to break your posts into multiple responses, my response would be pages and pages long. As it is, our communications are so long that probably most if not all other members lose interest in plowing through them. I say this not as an assault on you but as a moderator, asking you please get control of the excessive wordage, and the multiple ideas and points contained within paragraphs. As a courtesy. Pretend you are reading and reviewing the work of a student and edit accordingly. Please. Even I, and I greatly enjoy the conversation, am put off by the time and tediousness of what awaits me if I am to continue.

 

[Eleanor]

In the Covenant of Redemption within the Godhead before creation (seen clearly in Christ's prayer in John 17); before the first man Adam was created from the dust and the woman from one of Adam's ribs; did God intend that Adam would fall?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

Yes. . .

See Ro 9:22-23, 1 Pe 2:8 where

God chose to make his wrath and power known through those who prepared themselves for destruction, in order to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy.
They stumble because they disobey the messge--which is also what they were destined for, as in Ac 2:23, 4:28, 15:18, Isa 37:26, Lev 26:29.

 

[Arial]

I'm going to Dm you because I believe a rule is being violated unawares or unintentionally and I am not supposed to broach that in the thread.

That is what the report button is for. I have to take a break!

 

[Josheb]

The plan is what plays out on earth in time................

I'm going to Dm you because I believe a rule is being violated unawares or unintentionally and I am not supposed to broach that in the thread.

Never mind. I hadn't seen the moderation of Post 2.

However, my position is NOT that God did not "No, God did not intend that Adam would fall. In fact, this question points to an age-old theological distraction." While I do believe the question points to an age-old theological distraction, my position is that God neither intended nor not-intended the fall.

The Covenant of Redemption addresses the fall, but it is not predicated on the fall. Both an unfinished world and a corruptible creation are in inherent need of redemption.

 

[Josheb]

I am not proposing that the Covenant of Redemption is limited to the existence of sin. I am not proposing any limits. Nor am I proposing that it is dependent upon sin for its existence.

Good. I agree, and I did not necessarily read the op to dictate limitations (other than limiting answer to a yes or no response).

I am proposing that getting rid of sin is its purpose.

Is it being proposed getting rid of sin is its only purpose?

Redemption implies a need of being redeemed.

Yep. Redemption from physical mortality, the existing desolation, and corruptibility are each sufficient qualifiers. Sin adds a fourth. Isn't physical mortality a problem to be solved? Isn't the desolation of the earth a problem to be solved? Isn't the inherent corruptibility a problem to be solved?

Isn't Christ the solution to all four problems?

 

[Arial]

Is it being proposed getting rid of sin is its only purpose?

No. It is getting rid of sin for the ultimate purpose. But all of it is in the Covenant of Redemption. The ultimate purpose is the exaltation of Christ overall, in all and for all and dwelling with us. That is accomplished by his conquering sin and death. He does it by redeeming us, and he redeems us by his earthly work of obedience even unto death and rising from that death.

Redemption from physical mortality, the existing desolation, and corruptibility are each sufficient qualifiers. Sin adds a fourth. Isn't physical mortality a problem to be solved?

No, it is not a problem to be solved. God has no problems to solve. Our redemption is the means by which he destroys anything that can corrupt us and Christ, through his death and resurrection, washing away our sins, gives us eternal life (by grace and through faith). It is his to give.

Isn't Christ the solution to all four problems?

Yes, but they aren't problems for God to solve. Christ is the one sent to rescue a people in the kingdom of darkness and bring them into the kingdom of the Son. God was not solving a problem with/in the covenant of redemption. He was doing a remarkable, unfathomable thing that displays his power and glory and perfection. There is a sense in which it can be said that the redeemed are tools in his toolbox. It is really all about Christ and the glory of God. And yet, we are prized by him above all his creation because we belong to Christ and were created for Him.

 

[Arial]

my position is that God neither intended nor not-intended the fall.

That is an impossible position unless you can explain exactly what you mean in a way that has nothing to do with the aseity of God. At first glance of the statement and with nothing more than the statement to go on, that would mean an entirely random event came to pass.

The Covenant of Redemption addresses the fall, but it is not predicated on the fall.

It had to be in the Covenant as essential to the covenant, or there would have been no fall. There wouldn't have been anything in it that made sense without the fall. And God is not non-sensical. Remember, the plan in the CoR did not begin unfolding until Adam fell.

 

[Arial]

I'm going to Dm you because I believe a rule is being violated unawares or unintentionally and I am not supposed to broach that in the thread.

That is what the report button is for.

Sorry about that. I was very exhausted! The above was re: my post #30. No DM arrived to tell me what you thought the infraction was. I read my post very carefully and I can find no hint of rules violation.

 

[Arial]

Yes, Hebrews 9:27-28 was written after the fall (as was everything in the Bible) but, no, it was not written solely about post-fall conditions.

Heb 9:27-28 simply says when man dies, that is when he is judged. I do not believe it is making a statement that man has to die even without the fall. Adam was created mortal---able to die, not that he had to die even if he was never corrupted. He was capable of being corrupted, but that didn't mean he had to be corrupted. What God is creating through Christ is a man who cannot die and cannot be corrupted. Adam did not need to be redeemed until he became corrupted. And man could not be made immortal and incorruptible unless he first became corrupted and died (1 Cor 15). Therefore, the fall was necessary, therefore, God intended Adam to fall, in the sense that he ordained it and decreed the means.

It was all in the Covenant of Redemption which does not have parts any more than God has parts. It can't as it came from God. It has parts as it plays out according to the plan in time.

People die twice. The die in sin and they die physically. Jesus covers both circumstances, not just the former. Limiting the CoR to only the former is a mistake.

I don't. And I didn't.

Is the dependent need to eat from the ToL to avoid mortality viewed as part of the CoR, or not?

Everything in our Bible is part of the Covenant of Redemption.

Hmmmm.... not quite. Sin did bring a penalty of death, but that death is not the same death as a sinless mortality. Transgressional death (death due to transgression) or sinful death (death due to sin), is much different than physically dying without ever having sinned. It is very important to understand transgression and sin are not necessarily the same thing. There are ways to sin apart from transgressing the Law (this is why a hamartiology based solely on 1 Jn 3:4 is incomplete and thereby wrong). In point of fact, sinless death is sinful . Yep. How is sinless death sinful? The word "sin" means missing the target. What is the target?

Mortal does not mean will die. It means can die. When it comes to fallen man, yes, we will die. But Adam when he was created mortal was not in the position of will die. It means he was not inherently immortal but was capable of dying. I am going to have to skip the rest of your post. Maybe later I will come back to post #21.

 

[Arial]

Good. I agree, and I did not necessarily read the op to dictate limitations (other than limiting answer to a yes or no response).

The OP didn't limit the answer to yes or no. Each was followed with a why or why not?

 

[Arial]

I do affirm the CoR. The CoR is a man-made doctrine. It is something inferred from scripture, not something scripture explicitly states.

Would you call the Trinity a man-made doctrine? It is also inferred from the Scriptures.

The problem with that interpretation is that it necessarily holds something to be outside the CoR. That's not possible if the CoR is the defining purpose or goal of creation. It would be like saying Jesus is Lord over everything but that one particular rule God gave.

It would not. You seem to think that when I suggest that the Covenant of Redemption is the purpose of creation and that in it God ordained that Adam would fall, that I am suggesting that is the sum total of the Covenant of Redemption. Everything that we see in our Bibles is in the Covenant of Redemption. The Noah flood account is in it, the covenant with Abraham is in it. The promise of Messiah is in it. The Covenant with Israel is in it. The life death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus is in it. The work of the apostles is in it. The restoration of all things and the resurrection of the dead in Christ and the glorification of their bodies and the bodies of those who remain alive when he comes, is in it. The destruction of Satan is in it. The judgement of the wicked is in it. There is nothing that takes place in creation in time that is not in the Covenant of Redemption. There is nothing in our Bibles that is not also in the Covenant of Redemption.

 

[makesends]

If God decrees that the Fall must happen, does that mean He caused and determined it to come to pass, or that He allowed it to happen as always had the Cross of Christ to deal with it happening?

Do you suppose it happened by chance? How else can a thing happen, but as a result of what happened causally "before" it?

'"Chance" is only a placeholder for, "I don't know".' —RC Sproul

 

[John Bauer]

I meant it as both decretive and providential. He put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden, he gave the command to not eat of it and what the result would be if they did eat of it, and he placed the lying serpent in the garden. That would be providential. But did he not also ordain and decree exactly what would happen? And therefore, it was all intentional? There were no surprises or contingent possibilities.

What, in my struggling with it, keeps this from his being the author of sin, are two things.

1. His aseity. He cannot do anything contrary to himself. There is no sin in him to ordain or decree.
2. He ordained to create a being in his image and likeness (therefore with built in commands, so to speak, of moral holiness and obedience), but also a being that has the ability to make choices. That ability was free only with Adam and Eve, the focus on Adam as the federal head of all mankind as Scripture later unfolds. The unfolding of the Covenant of Redemption had to start with one man. After Adam gained the knowledge of evil as well as good, the agency of man was no longer free to only choose good. He was in bondage to sin.

So, we have to take this back to the Covenant of Redemption that was complete in all its parts and timing before being brought into time, before creation, and why there was a Covenant of Redemption. That Covenant would of necessity, in my thinking, have to be the purpose of creation.

Here is how I look at it:

Q. Did God know that Adam would sin?

A. Yes, he is omniscient. [See note 1.]

Q. Could he stop Adam from sinning?

A. Yes, he is omnipotent. [See note 2.]
​

Since he knew Adam would sin and let him do so, the only question that remains is, "Did God have a reason or purpose?" This is one arena in which the supralapsarian has the advantage, for he can point to the eternal pactum salutis as God's reason or purpose. All of this fulfills his ultimate goal, the cruciform manifestation of his own glory in the full range of his divine perfections. Redemptive history is the stage for this display, especially his mercy in the elect and his justice in the reprobate.

---

God allowed Adam to sin because the fall was the ordained means through which the divine decree of election and reprobation would reach its consummation in the revelation of Christ's glory—the mercy of grace and the justice of judgment—so that the fullness of God's attributes might be eternally displayed to the praise of his glory.

---

​

(Importantly and relatedly, this is why theodicy is not anthropocentric but theocentric—creation exists as a theater of divine glory, and moral history unfolds to magnify the character of God, not to maximize human well-being.)

But allow me to circle, highlight, and underline the fact that God's decree to permit sin is a logical necessity, not a causal one. Sin must exist in order that grace, mercy, and justice may be displayed, but God remains free and sovereign (i.e., he was not obligated or constrained by any external necessity). If God wills to glorify himself in redemption, the existence of sin becomes logically necessary as the condition for redemption to exist at all. Since it is logical, not causal, God is not the author of sin.

In Reformed scholastic terms, God's providence includes both God's general concurrence with all actions and his specific direction of all things toward his ends. When a creature sins, God concurs in the act as act (since all action depends on his sustaining power), but not in the defect or privation that constitutes sin's moral evil. The sinful quality of the act arises from the creature's will, which turns from God as its end. Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery is a great illustration of this. Both God and man involved in the same act, but it was a sin only for man: "You meant to harm me, but God intended it for a good purpose" (Gen. 50:20; cf. Isa. 10:7, which distinguishes God's intent from the king's intent).

---

Note 1: Before someone attempts to dismiss the whole thing as problematic because it associates God with temporal unfolding, let me just make it clear that I am okay with it because God does it himself. He said that he announces "the end from the beginning" and "reveals beforehand what has not yet occurred," that he has decreed and "will" bring it to pass, and so on (e.g., Isa. 46:9-11). Nobody needs to explain to God that he is eternal; and yet he is pleased to use temporal language of himself. So, to say that he knew Adam "would" sin is entirely consistent.

Note 2: Since God has stopped people from sinning, it follows that he can. God said to Abimelech, "That is why I have kept you from sinning against me and why I did not allow you to touch her" (Gen. 20:6).

 

[Josheb]

No. It is getting rid of sin for the ultimate purpose.

Right. So, what are the other purposes the Covenant of Redemption accomplishes?

But all of it is in the Covenant of Redemption.

Yep.

The ultimate purpose is the exaltation of Christ overall, in all and for all and dwelling with us.

Amen! The ultimate purpose is the glorification of God through His Son Jesus Christ. And that brings even more content under the domain of the CoR because God is glorified when He saves a sinner from sin and when He metes out the just recompense for sin. both acts glorify God and both acts are accomplished by/through/for Christ. It's not obvious to some but the eradication of sin and sinners from creation is part of the redemptive process. The redemption is not limited to the purchase of sinners from bondage, but the eradication of the bondage altogether! That too is redemptive. I've have tried to focus on what existed prior to Genesis 3:6-7 and not make everything about what happened after wards (and I have explained why that should be the case).

That is accomplished by his conquering sin and death.

Yes, but that is not all that his life, death and resurrection accomplished redemptively. For example, scripture explicitly states Jesus came to undo the works of the devil. The word "only" does not appear in that verse, but many people unwittingly insert that word. As a consequence, they mistakenly think sin is solely due to the serpent/devil when scripture makes it abundantly clear Adam, not the serpent gets the blame for bringing sin and transgressional death into the world. Jesus came to undo the works of both Adam and the devil, not just one or the other.

That is included in the Covenant of Redemption.

He does it by redeeming us, and he redeems us by his earthly work of obedience even unto death and rising from that death.

Yep.

The Greek word for "redeem" is often construed as "ransom," and in the context of debt, or bond service, it means "to buy back," but exagorazo also means to purchase with the connotation of improving upon the purchase.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought for a price: therefore, glorify God in your body.

To whom was that price paid? Some mistakenly think Satan was paid. Some think sin was paid. Many of them hold these views despite also knowing the debt of sin is owed to God, not Satan or sin. Satan is also a sinner! There is no redemption, ransom, or purchase for him, but the world and every member of the elect is, nonetheless redeemed from his existence and all his works.

No, it is not a problem to be solved.

I disagree.

But perhaps the disagreement is about my wording.

• God wants incorruptible people. Yes?
• God wants immortal people. Yes?
• God wants the earth's desolation conquered. Yes?
• God wanted creation rid of the adversary and his cohort. Yes?
• God wanted the earth's desolation conquered with the tree of life. Yes?
• God wanted all of the above prior to Adam's fall into sin. Yes?
• Knowing humans would sin, God wanted evil eradicated, not just goodness restored. Yes?

So rather than focusing on the word "problem" (as if anything is an actual problem for God) consider each of the points I've broached as goals or objectives accomplished by the Covenant of Redemption. The fact is humanity has a problem (several, in fact), and God solves it through His Son.

God has no problems to solve.

Did I say God was the one with the problem?

Our redemption is the means by which he destroys anything that can corrupt us and Christ, through his death and resurrection, washing away our sins, gives us eternal life (by grace and through faith). It is his to give.

Which is exactly what I have said using different words. All of the points in that bullet list above have been or will be accomplished by Christ.

Yes, but they aren't problems for God to solve. Christ is the one sent to rescue a people in the kingdom of darkness and bring them into the kingdom of the Son.

Why did Christ need to be sent? You may call it something other than a "problem" if you like, but the fact remains God does not want His people dead in sin. Nor does He want good and sinless people physically dying apart from Christ.

God was not solving a problem with/in the covenant of redemption. He was doing a remarkable, unfathomable thing that displays his power and glory and perfection.

The two are not mutually exclusive condition.

There is a sense in which it can be said that the redeemed are tools in his toolbox.

Yep. It is very clear the dominion mandate carries the expectation Adam and Eve, and their progeny are the ones commanded to do the work specified. The question is how is it to be accomplished. Is it to be accomplished solely through good and sinless flesh? Is it to be accomplished merely by populating the planet with good and sinless flesh that has no knowledge of the tree's fruit, and the populated world has only one local presence of the tree of life? Can such a world accurately be called subdued and ruled in a manner consistent with wholes scripture. Can it accurately be said to have been subdued and ruled within the purpose of the Covenant of Redemption?

It is really all about Christ and the glory of God.

Yep. And nothing I have posted should ever be construed to say otherwise.

And yet, we are prized by him above all his creation because we belong to Christ and were created for Him.

Yep. No apply that to all the conditions, and all the goals, that existed prior to Genesis 3:6 and Romans 5:12.

Or, explain how predicating the Covenant of Redemption solely on Adam's fall into sin does not make God and His plan dependent on sin, and how all the contradictions I listed earlier do not occur (we can't have the Law Maker making a covenant on His intending lawlessness, etc.).

 

[John Bauer]

[M]y position is that God neither intended nor not-intended the fall.

This is a logical contradiction (given the law of excluded middle). Formally, the proposition has the structure:

• P: God intended the fall.
  
  ​
• ¬P: God did not intend the fall.

The statement claims: ¬(P ∨ ¬P). That is impossible if intend retains the same sense in both clauses.

 

[Josheb]

Heb 9:27-28 simply says when man dies, that is when he is judged. I do not believe it is making a statement that man has to die even without the fall.

Your belief is not a just basis for interpreting scripture.

I will appeal to the dominion mandate. This was the first blessing and the first command ever uttered by God. How was its fulfillment to be appraised if there was not some subsequent judgment. Or, to word it another way, assuming the task was accomplished, how was the accomplishment to be judged if there was no subsequent point of appraisal? The command itself implies a subsequent measure of the goal.

When Adam disobeyed God it was the dominion mandate he disobeyed, not merely the prohibition against eating the forbidden fruit. Had Adam subdued the serpent and ruled over him we would not be in this predicament. Adam was given authority and power over all the creatures in the garden, and he did not exercise it when the occasion to do so arose. He should have rebuked the serpent, perhaps even slain him before ever considering taking the fruit from Eves hand.

We have already agreed Man was made mortal and any extension of life avoiding physical death was dependent upon partaking from the tree of life. I have already made the case for the prospect the tree of life incurred death and resurrection. Humanity's problem is the problem of corruptibility, not merely corruptedness. It's an assumption to think the tree of life prolonged life by avoiding God's design = mortality. If the tree of life extended life that is not the same as making a person immortal. If Hebrews 9:27 is read through 1 Corinthians 15 then the corruptible mortal seed that was sown (not a corrupted and sinfully dead seed) has to die and turn into something else, just as a seed dies when buried and grows into a plant that, in its turn, produces more seeds. A transformation occurs and that transformation is said to apply to the corruptible, not the corrupted, the perishable, not the perished.

Therefore, Hebrews 9:27 is about all humanity, not just post-disobedient humanity. It's about the created order, not the post-disobedient sinful order.

 

[Josheb]

This is a logical contradiction (given the law of excluded middle). Formally, the proposition has the structure:

• P: God intended the fall.
  
  ​
• ¬P: God did not intend the fall.

The statement claims: ¬(P ∨ ¬P). That is impossible if intend retains the same sense in both clauses.

Incorrect. Post #38 is true only if it is assumed P and not-P are relevant. The op asserts the premise as a given, but it shouldn't be treated thusly.

Is this the first time you've been caught hiding in the closet wearing a rubber glove on your head intending to read the Satanic Bible? Yes or no? Explain your answer.

The answer is you weren't in the closet, hiding or otherwise, with a rubber glove on your head intending to read anything. No such circumstance, not such intention, no such behavior ever existed and limiting your options to yes or no and an explanation for only one or the other choice is the problem. The inquiry is built on faulty presuppositions. And that presup ends up compromising an accurate understanding the Covenant of Redemption (or one of a few other doctrines) once the error is followed through to its logical necessities. Don't assume P and -P are relevant. Not making that assumption fosters a better understanding of the CoR (and God, and Christ, and Covenant Theology, soteriology, hamartiology, etc.).

A simpler example would be....

P: God intends to wear a soiled diaper.
-P: God does not intend to wear a diaper.

.....when the truth is God does not wear diapers and has no intent to do so, soiled or not. The op assumes intent as a given. Nowhere is divine intent established as a relevant necessity and if and when intent is established it cannot be predicated solely on sin. God's intent (relevant to the Covenant of Redemption) is much greater than the existence of sin. It applies to conditions that existed in the created order prior to Adam's fall into sin. The Godhead looked at sin and said, "Meh. Got that already taken care of," and not "Oh MY! I better do something about that!" I have not violated the law of non-contradiction and if it is thought I have then my position has not been correctly understood.