Adam and the Fall

[Josheb]

Mortal does not mean will die. It means can die.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Mortal means subject to death and the subjection can be both a possibility and an inevitability. To suggest no condition in creation would dictate death would be to say the laws of physics were entirely different prior to Genesis 3:6. It is to say Adam no human would ever slip off a mountain path and if they did the impact of the sudden stop below would not cause death. It is to assert an idealized creation so pristine that no accident would ever be lethal. "Mortal" does mean will die.

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).

Other than the post-disobedient citing of Isaiah 10, where is the mention of divine intent? Where does Post #36 attend to the pre-creation, eternal covenant of Redemption formed before creation was created and the intent assumed to be predicated (solely) upon sin? Lots of good stuff in that post but it does not address the specific matter of pre-existent intent.


I gotta go. Probably won't be back until morning. I ask you both to give consideration to whole scripture and not just what theologians you've read have said about the Covenant of Redemption. Covenant Theology is an accurate portrayal of scripture, but scripture measure measures, not the other way around. Follow the premise of predicating a covenant solely on sin to its logically necessary conclusion given the whole of scripture. Consider the premise in regard to divine attributes and the doctrines of aseity, simplicity, etc. Consider the possibility the question of intent is misplaced. It doesn't apply because the divine intent is larger and not predicated solely on sin but it does, nonetheless, preemptively address that condition.

[MOD WARNING: Members are not moderators and should not impersonate or act as though they are.]
​

 

[Carbon]

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?

All I can say that I'm absolutely convinced of is that if God didn't intend for Adam to fall, then Adam wouldn't have fallen.

Oh, one more thing.

“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, so that we may follow all the words of this Law. Deut 29:29.

 

[Carbon]

It's been my view that satan and the angels that aligned with him fell after creation.
This would negate the concept of creation being for the destruction of the serpent.

Am I wrong? Perhaps I misread you.

@Arial @CrowCross

Who is this about? Eze 28:11-15

And how would this fit in with when this someone who was created?

 

[Josheb]

It's been my view that satan and the angels that aligned with him fell after creation.
This would negate the concept of creation being for the destruction of the serpent.

Am I wrong? Perhaps I misread you.

Why are Satan and the angels that aligned with him being destroyed? They, along with death, are going to be destroyed, yes?

Why?

The keep asking "Why?" and follow that through all the way to the foundation explaining why Satan and his cohort are going to be destroyed. Then ask yourself, "Was that decided prior to Satan's fall, or afterward? Did God have to make an adjustment in His already existing plan because of something that happened after creation was created, or was His (original) plan already sufficient for the purpose of addressing Satan's fall?

 

[CrowCross]

Depends on what you mean by "creation". Creation of everything or creation of our world. I think they fell before the creatin of our world. Otherwise, how could Satan in the form of a serpent be in the Garden of Eden? It may be that the rebellion of Satan and the angels that followed him were the beginning of evil manifest in creatures. But that goes beyond what we are clearly given to speculate into the secret things of God. So I don't look. I won't find even if I do look. I just present a possibility and base no doctrine on my "may be"

I see it this way.....after God created He said everything was good. In fact very good. I believe you know the verse.
I say that to say this,
Psalm 148:2-5 tells us....God gave the command and they...the angels... were among what was created.
When were they created? I would say first...as they witnessed the creation of Gen 1. We can see that in Job 38:7 when God is talking to God about the creation and says....when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy.

Connecting more dots...

In Ezekiel 28:12 and onward... we read of a Cherub (angel) that was created....a beautiful angel that walk in the garden of Eden.
Then verse 15 speaks of wickedness being found in him.
Though this verse speaks of the King of Tyre the verse presents the King as a type of Satan...Using the King of Tyre Ezekiel describes Satan.
We know the verse speaks of much more than the man called the King of Tyre as the King of Tyre isn't a cherub. The King of Tyre wasn't in Eden the garden of God.
Verse 17 also mentions the guardian cherub was cast to the earth. Other verses in the bible describe this happening to Satan.

The simple conclusion is Satan walked in the Garden of Eden in an unfallen state...which means Satan fell sometime after day 7 and not prior to the creation of earth and the following 7 days....As mentioned above everything was created very good. This would include Satan as written about in the discription provided in Ezekiel 28.

You asked..."how could Satan in the form of a serpent be in the Garden of Eden?" This was after Satans fall. Satan fall occured sometime after creation.
Many have your view that you present..."I think they fell before the creation of our world."....
Those that have that view typically believe in a pre-Adamic world that was destroyed by "Satans flood" claiming the world "became" formless and void.

Anyway, that's where I've landed. Does it make sense?

 

[CrowCross]

Why are Satan and the angels that aligned with him being destroyed? They, along with death, are going to be destroyed, yes?

Why?

The keep asking "Why?" and follow that through all the way to the foundation explaining why Satan and his cohort are going to be destroyed. Then ask yourself, "Was that decided prior to Satan's fall, or afterward? Did God have to make an adjustment in His already existing plan because of something that happened after creation was created, or was His (original) plan already sufficient for the purpose of addressing Satan's fall?

(spoiler alert) I've read the end of the book...God wins.

Along the way Satan and his minions cause much destruction. They currently war against you and me.
They are far smarter, stronger and more powerful than us. BUT, we have the blood of Christ Jesus.

 

[John Bauer]

Where does [your post] attend to the pre-creation, eternal covenant of redemption formed before creation was created ...

The very first paragraph after the brief Q&A. I said, "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." Practically by definition, this implicates a pre-creation intent. As I said elsewhere, "God decreed the fall for his redemptive purpose and glory."

Your objection only holds if the divine reason or purpose is framed in infralapsarian terms—which my post clearly and explicitly obviated. Mine is a supralapsarian reading of divine reason or purpose, rooted in the eternal decree of glory through Christ, not in sin itself. My post assumes the pre-creation pactum salutis as the reason why the fall is ordained at all.

So, your criticism doesn't land unless you equivocate on "intent"—which I likewise obviated (here).

obviate (verb): Anticipate and disarm a problem or objection before it is raised.

(Note: For those who might miss the point, as the eternal counsel among the persons of the Trinity concerning redemption, the pactum salutis by definition belongs to the eternal, pre-creation decree. For this reason, the covenant of redemption is not a reaction to sin but the reason for permitting sin. Its telos is Christ’s mediatorial glory, and sin is the occasion by which that glory is displayed in history.

... and the intent assumed to be predicated (solely) upon sin? ... [T]he divine intent is larger and not predicated solely on sin.

I am not aware of anyone in this thread operating under that assumption. In fact, Arial has been observed repudiating that notion. If you are representing someone's argument honestly and accurately, I have to wonder who it is. If you are speaking of either myself or Arial, then you are misrepresenting one or both of us.

It is a mistake to think that by linking the pactum salutis to the fall we are making sin the ground of that covenant. That does not follow, and we are not. Sin is not the ground of the covenant of redemption; it is the divinely ordained means by which that covenant is historically executed.

Texts like 2 Timothy 1:9 and Ephesians 1:4-10 explicitly ground salvation "before the ages began" and "before the foundation of the world." These implicate an antecedent, pre-creation intent to redeem. Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"—decreed as such before any creature existed. The purpose of the fall was to manifest in history what was already decreed eternally: the cruciform glorification of the Son and, through him, of the triune God.

I ask you both to give consideration to whole scripture and not just what theologians you've read have said about the covenant of redemption.

You are making assumptions about us that are presumptuous, insulting, and inaccurate. Speaking now as a moderator: Maybe don't include condescending stuff like that in your posts.

 

[CrowCross]

Interesting concept.
In your post you said...

"God decreed the fall for his redemptive purpose and glory."

and

The purpose of the fall was to manifest in history what was already decreed eternally: the cruciform glorification of the Son and, through him, of the triune God.

I think it would be "impossible" for God to create any living being with a conscience and free will and not have it fall.
Why? Only God is perfect. If man was created perfect then they couldn't sin. Considering God can't create another perfect God then man (A&E) was destined to fall.

I don't know if God decreed man to fall but knowing man couldn't be perfect before creation...but... God had a plan of salvation.
In the redemption process God was able to showed His full self....His glory as well as agape love, that He is a judge and also just and is justice.
Perhaps without the fall God couldn't show or manifest His complete true nature.
Perhaps because God was responsible for creating man that wasn't perfect and had to fall....God himself stepped out of heaven and became a man and paid the price for the reconciliation.

The fallen angels have no reconcillation because the choice to rebel was their choice and can't inherit a sin nature like man because they had no parents. Unlike man there was no deception of a third party involved.

Then again I'm speculating.