Adam and the Fall

[Arial]

Your belief is not a just basis for interpreting scripture.

It's a good thing, then, that I didn't say it was. Neither is yours. We both, however, are allowed to say what those beliefs are.

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

It wasn't obeyed, isn't being obeyed, and we see the judgement. Among other things, God subjected the entire creation because of it. I do not see the point of the question. In his image and likeness is the measure of the required obedience.

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?

God himself is the point of appraisal. But "what if's" are irrelevant. There are not multiple possibilities except in the minds of half blind, earth bound, humans. What did happen is the only thing that could happen as God is omnipotent omniscient, omnipresent. He ordains all things that come to pass.

The command itself implies a subsequent measure of the goal.

I intend to offense, just making an observation, but "Duh".

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.

Does the Bible say or infer or imply any of that? It is an entirely human construct. It was not failing to slay or
rebuke the serpent that brought sin and death to mankind, it was the knowledge of evil as well as good. God did not chastise Adam for not slaying or rebuking the serpent. He chastised him for eating of the forbidden tree. It was not a failure to rebuke or slay the serpent that sent Adam and Eve trying to hide from God. It is what happened to them after they ate of that tree.

It's an assumption to think the tree of life prolonged life by avoiding God's design = mortality.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" Scripture declares that the reason they were kicked out of the garden after sinning was because they would continue to live as sinners if they had access to the tree of life. What seems to be absent when you make these points is the fullness of the Covenant of Redemption before creation and that everything in and about creation is already established by God to be exactly the way it came about and to serve his purpose, and it is all connected. The assumption in the above post is that man would die even if he had access to the tree of life.

If the tree of life extended life that is not the same as making a person immortal.

I don't recall anyone making that assertion?

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.

So what else is new? I don't know why you think I have said the opposite of the above. In fact I think I have drawn attention to my arguments by pointing to 1 Cor 15 at least once, maybe more.

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.

It is irrevocably about all humanity since the fall. You need to establish that something that is capable of being corruptible but is never corrupted, is corrupt.

 

[Arial]

The angels were there when the earth (Job 38:4) was created, not when creation was created. That is a very important detail. Genesis 1:1 states the heavens and the earth were created and verse 4 states the heavens were made on the second day, and in verses 9 and 10 we see the earth being made.

Genesis 1:7-10
7God made the expanse and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

The heavens and their hosts were made on day 2 and the earth was made then next day. The angels were created on day 2 and they were present, rejoicing when God made the earth the next day.

Well..... first go back and connect all the dots in Job 38 because the use of Job 38:7 in Post #45 is incorrect.

Probably. Ezekiel 28 has Satan still adorned when he is in Eden and then cut down, cast down, and turned to ashes. The problem is that all the animals - which would include the serpent - were made by the sixth day. It is logically possible that Satan was made on the second day, walked in Eden still in his God-made glory on the sixth day and rebelled after God rested on the seventh day, thereafter, being cast down onto the earth to be further subdued and ruled by humans. But it is also logically possible for the rebellion to have occurred between days 2 and 6 and one of the reasons God commanded the dominion mandate was because of Satan's existence on the planet. Genesis 2 does not actaully state Eden was made after Adam was made. It appears that way, but a sequence is not stated.

Genesis 1 states vegetation was made on the second day. Humans were made on day 6. Genesis 2 has God making Adam and then making a garden into which He placed Adam. Genesis 1 states God examines ALL that He had made (not created; asah, not bara) was accomplished in six days. Therefore, when Genesis 2 lays out a timeline in which man is made and then placed in a garden and then the woman is made we necessarily understand that was all done in the first six days, specifically on the sixth day because after that God was done both creating and making. So the logical timeline is that the angels were created on day 2 and were present when God made the earth. Two days later humans were made and placed in the garden and God rested.

We know that the purpose given to Adam and Eve and, by extension, all their progeny was to subdue the earth and rule over it. The earth was desolate (void) but it was also good and already covered with vegetation, so the context of "dominion" command must, therefore, be about something other than planting crops. We must ask ourselves, "What is there to conquer if the planet and everything made thereon is good?" Perhaps something not-good was placed there, something that needed subduing. We know the serpent (Satan) was in the garden and Adam and Eve had authority and power to rule over him. In point of fact, the first command broken was not the eating of the forbidden fruit. The first command broken was the failure to subdue and rule over the serpent. Had Adam subdued the serpent he'd have never eaten the forbidden fruit. Adam did not disobey one command; he disobeyed ALL the commands.

It's not possible for Satan to have fallen prior to the creation of creation because he did not exist prior to the creation's being created. Satan is a created creature, part of the heavens and heavenly host that were made on the second day. He was there when the world was made, but not there when the heavens were made, and neither was he present when the works of the first day were made.

The foundation of a post-Eden rebellion is that everything God made was good, according to Genesis 1:31. It is possible that God could have looked His six days of work and viewed Satan's imprisonment and subjugation on earth as part of that goodness but that treads on a strictly utilitarian definition of goodness and that is going to run into conflicts with other scripture. God's ethic is not strictly utilitarian. The ends do not justify the means. So, it is, therefore, most likely God made a good heavens and a good earth with good creatures in each and Satan mucked up the heavens and Adam mucked up the earth and they two of them joined each other in death and misery, both of them having been stripped of their original glory.

One of them was to be redeemed unto salvation. The other was to be eradicated. Or, more accurately, some from among humanity would go through disobedience on their way to perfection, while ALL the rest (of both disobedient humanity and the disobedient heavenly host) would go through disobedience to a destructive purge.

Mod Hat: The OP is not about angels or the order of creation.

 

[Arial]

I said the King of Tyre was a type of Satan.
In the passage the King of Tyre is called an anointed guardian cherub. In the passage the King of Tyre is seen falling from heaven....these descriptions certainly are not of a mortal man.
The one mentioned in Ezekiel 28 was seen in the garden of Eden in an un-fallen state of existence. Insert this mentioning into the timeline and it shows Lucifer fell after God created His VERY good creation and not prior to God creating the world in six day as seen in Gen 1.

Why do you think Lucifer fell prior to the creation of the world?

Mod Hat: The OP is not about angels fallen or otherwise.

 

[Arial]

The trinity knew this prior to the creation and despite their omniscience knowledge they created Adam and Eve....on purpose with no mistake fully knowing the Word would have to become flesh and die on the cross.

Then that must have been the intent of God all along. The way you word that it has God learning something and then coming up with a way to resolve the issue.

 

[Arial]

Do you have a chapter and verse for that or are you speculating?

I am going by what we see happens in the end in the Bible, and what Christ did on the cross.

 

[Josheb]

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."

That is one unjustified presupposition upon another. Both lapsarianism and divine intent must be justified - not assumed - before they have any validity. I've made my views on lapsarianism known in threads HERE and HERE. I was not alone in questioning and disputing the man-made construct's relevance. There is no "advantage" asserting one irrelevancy upon another. That is sophistry! The sentence "Practically by definition this implicates...." is self-contradictory nonsense. It's word salad. The word "practically" means almost, which means not quite. The word "definition" means a statement of exact meaning. It is not logically possible to have an almost exact statement. That's like almost pregnant.

And you're going to end up derailing the thread if belaboring lapsarianism occurs, so count me out.

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.

The posts and reason prove otherwise.

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.

Completely false and misrepresentative. What I did do was post lengthy and detailed explanations that explained how and why the premise of intent is unnecessary and how the whole of scripture provides a basis for understanding redemption (and the covenant thereof) without predicating it solely on sin's existence. Other have managed to agree with parts of that provision and discuss it with manners, respect, and cogent discourse, {edit for rules violations}

Post 15 was your best contribution to the thread, so far.{ edit}


God does not have to intend or not intend sin and He most definitely does not have to meticulously make its occurrence. The Covenant of Redemption cannot be made to conflict in any way with Chapter 3 of the WCF (God's not the author of sin and he did no violence to volition or the liberty of secondary causes when He ordained everything. The doctrine of the CoR cannot contradict the doctrines of aseity and simplicity, either, so the CoR cannot be construed in any way to make God dependent upon sin. These are logical necessities and Posts 38 and 47 do nothing to address those matters.

It is a mistake to think that by linking the pactum salutis to the fall we are making sin the ground of that covenant.

Which is exactly what I said.

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.

It does if God intended sin as decretively as described in Post 15 . It does if "intent" is understood with the normal meaning of the word in ordinary usage (which I posted earlier). If the CoR is understood to be more encompassing than sin intent regarding sin is irrelevant. If sin is understood as a (natural) function of corruptibility and volitional agency (both of which are God-made and decretively intended by God) then all appeals to divine intent (thetical and antithetical) are unnecessary. There is no need for a solution to a problem that did not need to be created in the first place. Post 15 looked at the nature of intent as asserted in the op. Well done.

I would want to say, rather, that God "decreed the fall for his redemptive purpose and glory," or even that he "permitted the fall in accordance with his sovereign plan."

Which makes intent regarding sin irrelevant.

God had a pre-existing plan. Sin happened, but it's not of particular consequence to God's plan because God's plan, being much greater than any one single event in creation, already addressed every event within creation without God having to be concerned specifically about sin as a contingency to be addressed. He most definitely did not say to Himself, "Oh My! I must make sure my plan does something about that sin thing. I better make sure my plan has a contingency for that inevitability." The CoR is most definitely not a post hoc covenant. It is much more consistent with whole scripture to say God's response to both the inevitability and occurrence of sin was more like, "Meh. Our covenant plan has that covered. I need not have any special regard for that. It is already addressed with what I have already intended."

That avoids the problem of something happening God did not intend and the problem of a Law Maker intending lawlessness.

I would argue it's not even necessary for God to decretively "permit" sin. We can't have a laissez-faire God. We cannot have a dependent God. We can't have a blind watchmaker God, either. Neither can we have a righteous and perfect God proactively causing unrighteousness and imperfection. We can have a God who creates creation with a purpose culminating in one or more goals that covers everything that happens consequent to the design of that creation and its purpose and goals. He need not intend sin and He not need not-intend sin. He need not have any intent regarding sin (or any number of other events) at all because His already-existing plan is unaffected by that event. As @Arial said, sin is not a problem for God.

Well, if that is true, then why must intent for a non-existent problem exist?

 

[makesends]

At the risk of a tangent departure from the OP —this may or may not be worthy of its own thread— can you expand a little here?

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.

This last statement —"that God neither intended nor not-intended the fall"— doesn't add up to me, but it may be at the root of why I don't get how you don't get that whatever proceeds from God's act of creation was, on his part, intentional; and, thus, meticulous causation, (and, jumping a logical step or two), to include meticulous control.

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.

What IS the Redemption from, if not from the fall and its effects? Are you defining the CoR by its total end result, and not merely by "redemption"? I agree that the Covenant of Redemption and the Redemption itself produce a product far better than a mere return to an Edenic dynamic, but I don't see how the fall is not endemic to the need for redemption. By, "[the CoR] is not predicated on the fall", do you mean only that God intended the CoR because of its end result and not because of the fall?

 

[CrowCross]

Then that must have been the intent of God all along. The way you word that it has God learning something and then coming up with a way to resolve the issue.

I disagree...how so?

 

[Arial]

I disagree...how so?

The trinity knew this prior to the creation and despite their omniscience knowledge

The Trinity knew. and despite that knowledge. God didn't just know it and do something in spite of what he knew. He knew it because he ordained it to be so. I accept that is what you meant if you say it is.

 

[CrowCross]

Mod Hat: The OP is not about angels fallen or otherwise.

It has been my experience in forums that ofter a "side issue" has to be brought up in order to support ones view.

We need to remember that to was a fallen angel that was used concerning the OP...Adam and the fall.

 

[Arial]

The word "practically" means almost, which means not quite. The word "definition" means a statement of exact meaning.

That is not the only definition of "practically". It also means in practical manner.

 

[Arial]

It has been my experience in forums that ofter a "side issue" has to be brought up in order to support ones view.

We need to remember that to was a fallen angel that was used concerning the OP...Adam and the fall.

Debating over when Satan fell of when angels were created or fell is not a necessary "side issue" to answering the OP question or explaining ones "why" or "why not". What it does and had already begun to do is start a digression from the topic entirely and instead discuss angels.

 

[Josheb]

It's a good thing, then, that I didn't say it was.

I did not say or imply you had. What I did do was cover that base and clarify the matter relevant to what was posted.

It wasn't obeyed, isn't being obeyed, and we see the judgement.

I disagree. It was not obeyed prior to Calvary, but it has been obeyed (with varying degrees of success) since then and that is due to the CoR..

Does the Bible say or infer or imply any of that?

Yes, and I provided a brief, scripture-filled explanation how and why that implication is an accurate understanding of what is written.

It is an entirely human construct.

It is not. The command is not a human construct. The label is not, either. The label of the command is a product of English translation whereby the Hebrew "radah" is correctly understood as to have dominion, prevail, and rule.

It was not failing to slay or rebuke the serpent that brought sin and death to mankind, it was the knowledge of evil as well as good.

Scripture says otherwise. Romans 5 does not specify which command was disobeyed. Genesis 1 and 2 provide two commands and Genesis 3 describes how both were ignored. Logic dictates that had Adam ruled as he had been commanded (over himself, the serpent, and everything around him) he never would have eaten the forbidden fruit. Protests without explanation do not refute any of that.

They most certainly do not prove the Covenant of Redemption had to be predicated in any way solely on Adam's fall into sin.

God did not chastise Adam for not slaying or rebuking the serpent. He chastised him for eating of the forbidden tree. It was not a failure to rebuke or slay the serpent that sent Adam and Eve trying to hide from God. It is what happened to them after they ate of that tree.

What God did was address what Adam said. It was Adam who initiated the explanation, and it was Adam who disclosed his awareness of nakedness (and shame = he had always been naked). God simply responded accordingly. That does not in any way negate the fact Adam was naked and ashamed as a direct consequence of his failure to rule. Had he obeyed the first command then he never would have disobeyed the second.

If we fast forward to the New Testament and the Last Adam's example, we see Jesus repeatedly rebuking the serpent and refusing to entertain his lies.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" Scripture declares that the reason they were kicked out of the garden after sinning was because they would continue to live as sinners if they had access to the tree of life.

Yep. I'd word it differently but that is the gist, and I have already posted that same position.

What seems to be absent when you make these points is the fullness of the Covenant of Redemption before creation and that everything in and about creation is already established by God to be exactly the way it came about and to serve his purpose, and it is all connected. The assumption in the above post is that man would die even if he had access to the tree of life.

I am going to move on because that is completely false. I was not certain of that when I read your words. I thought perhaps I had unwittingly strayed, but I just went back and searched every single post of mine in this thread and, aside form the post about my DMing you, I found only two posts with no explicit mention of the Covenant of Redemption/CoR and one of them was not written to you. In point of demonstrable fact, at the foundation of my viewpoint is the belief the CoR is much larger than Adam's fall into sin (it has greater fullness) so it cannot be accurately said the fullness of the CoR is absent when I make these points.

That, the increased personal content, the blatantly disputatious content of Post 72 ("practically" was not used in that manner and had it been used that way the earlier statement would still be incorrect), and the fact I've begun unnecessarily repeating already posted content means it's time for me to move on. Thank you for the time spend trading posts with me discussing the op. I hope what I have posted will be given some benevolent consideration because it is correct (or at least t has not been proven incorrect).

 

[CrowCross]

@Josheb I replied in great detail to your post #59...but a certain moderator deleted it.
Apparently the concept of Adams fall and the role Satan played in it concerning when he fell and became the deceiver to Eve..and whether God had orchestrated it from the beginning of time too happen that way.....was off topic.

 

[Josheb]

At the risk of a tangent departure from the OP —this may or may not be worthy of its own thread— can you expand a little here?

This last statement —"that God neither intended nor not-intended the fall"— doesn't add up to me, but it may be at the root of why I don't get how you don't get that whatever proceeds from God's act of creation was, on his part, intentional; and, thus, meticulous causation, (and, jumping a logical step or two), to include meticulous control.

not because of the fall?

Before anyone can ask about any intent it must first be established that either intent is germane or that intent existed. That hasn't happened. It usually does not happen in discussions of divine intent relevant to sin. It's always assumed as a given without justification. Further more, to ask, "Did God intend Adam would fall?" (or most variations of that wording) is to imply its antithesis, "Did God intend Adam would not fall?" The common element being the assumption intent existed. What isn't asked in this op, nor is it generally asked in the discussion of this subject, especially in regard to the Covenant of Redemption asserted in Covenant Theology, is, "Did God have any intent at all pertaining to Adam's fall?" or "Is it necessary that any divine intent specific to Adam's fall exist?"

On a more personal note: (Among other things ) I am a presuppositionalist. I generally (though not always) approach discussions presuppositionally. I look for the statements upon which the positions are built. I look for unjustified assumptions. I openly ask about these matters and do so with manners and respect will hopeful expectation sound useful, scriptural answers can and will be provided AND, on any occasion when they are not or cannot be provided then those concerns can be discussed in goodwill and fellowship for the purposes of mutual edification and a shared consensus with scripture (not merely each other). Presuppositional has a long and functional history in apologetics, and this forum is supposed to be an apologetics forum. Presuppositionalism isn't easy; it's generally considered the most challenging to learn and practice but it is also considered an excellent method for both asserting and defending the gospel. In other words, there's nothing inherently wrong with the approach, nor the manner in which I assert it. It is, however, sometimes challenging to look underneath what we believe, or what we've been taught (such as Covenant Theology and the Covenant of Redemption) and either establish its presuppositions correctly, acknowledge problems therein, or discard the lesson because of flawed presuppositions. Few Christian doctrines are impeccable. Were imperfect people imperfectly formalizing imperfect viewpoints of perfect scripture that goes beyond our current understanding. I've never said anyone had to present a perfect argument or defense. I've never held myself or my viewpoints thusly, either. I have repeatedly expressed the view that discussions help us all refine the reasons for what we believe, especially when we're authentically engaged for that purpose.​

So.... my saying intent is not germane to Adam's fall and my asking questions thereof is valid and reasonable, at least until someone provides justification for the existence of intent. From my perspective the onus is not on me to explain why intent is irrelevant in this particular case. The onus is on those asserting intent as a given. So, therefore, I will respectfully suggest Post #68 be directed to others (although I am happy to take up the matter in a separate thread).

What IS the Redemption from, if not from the fall and its effects?

I have already partly answered that question. Was that content read? If so, then ask me for clarification relevant to that content. That way I will know I am not knowingly being asked something I have already knowingly answered.

Are you defining the CoR by its total end result, and not merely by "redemption"?

Yes. I take a holistic approach from two points of view: 1) the whole of scripture and 2) the teachings of the doctrine itself. I am not, for example, defining the CoR as something like Roman Catholicism or Dispensational Premillennialism might. I do define the divine covenant by what scripture states about covenant. For example, they are always monergistically initiated and established. They are never initiated by another party. Never. There's not a single example in the entire Bible of any sinner ever initiating a covenant with God, and that is especially true when it comes to salvation (and redemption). While I cannot, off the top of my head at this moment recall a particular covenantalist saying this, it is consistent with and foundational to CT. The CoR was established prior to creation so all post hoc definitions are fallacious and the same holds true for single constituent elements. God could have redeemed humanity/creation without a covenant. Some think that the case and question or eschew the CoR in entirety.

I agree that the Covenant of Redemption and the Redemption itself produce a product far better than a mere return to an Edenic dynamic, but I don't see how the fall is not endemic to the need for redemption.

I don't deny the endemic nature of the fall to the need for redemption. I simply say sin, or the event of the fall, is 1) not the whole or sole predicate for the CoR, and 2) not a dependency upon which the CoR is based.

The alternatives beg the question, "How then do you avoid making God dependent on creation - and sinful creation at that?" which, if the thread is re-examined the evidence will be no one answered that question. I don't recall anyone even trying. Presuppositionally speaking, God's plan would absolutely, necessarily have to have sin for the plan to exist, and for the plan to succeed. God, the Law Maker (according to His own word) would necessarily, inescapably, unavoidably have to have lawlessness. God, the Righteous One, has to have unrighteousness. The Ever-Faithful One has to have faithlessness. At the foundation of that view is a thesis/antithesis necessity. God has to have the antithesis before His thesis can exist, have merit, or succeed. Applying the temporality of the fall in answer is not an actual answer. It's sophistry.

By, "[the CoR] is not predicated on the fall", do you mean only that God intended the CoR because of its end result and

LOL! I don't know why I am being asked that question when I have explicitly and repeatedly stated I do not believe any intent specifically pertaining to Adam's fall exists when the Godhead covenants with Itself to redeem creation and the elect therein!

The Covenant of Redemption is, by definition, redemptive. It's in the title of the covenant. The thread of redemption runs through the entirety of scripture either explicitly or implicitly from beginning to end. God intending redemption does not mean He had to intend the fall or intend the fall would not occur. Both sides of that equation create a dependency that must be explained because God cannot be dependent in creation. There are many concerns along these same lines (like God does have to have a covenant to redeem). God might have had some such intent, but I have yet to read anyone make that case or prove it as a necessity. In point of fact, merely asking the question proves problematic!

Aside from what I have already posted here and in the thread, God created a redeemable creation/world, and He did so intentionally. If the world were not redeemable there'd be no basis in CT for a CoR. From God intentionally creating a redeemable creation we can infer other intents, such as His intending the Son to be the perfect sacrifice. We start from what is stated and make inference based on those statements (as opposed to inferences based on doctrinal inferences, for example). And, given that both God and creation are/were good, we also start with the statement of intent that are good because we know God cannot a priori intend evil in a good creation. After sin occurs and creation is corrupted Gd can do with the trash whatever He likes, but that has nothing to do with what is preexistent and the pre-existing CoR. Scripture says very little about the pre-creation conditions and the intents of God therein. We're all working from post hoc revelation that says very little about preexisting divine intent. Inferences, therefore, cannot be avoided. The question is how those inferences are justified.

The covenant has to be defined by scripture and redemption has to be defined by scripture and the covenant of redemption has to be defined by the relationship between covenant and redemption as scripture defines that relationship. That is at the foundation of Covenant Theology and the Covenant of Redemption. If it weren't we'd have to say both are entirely extra-scriptural at best and unscriptural at worst. I've already posts content about redemption in this thread, and I have posted plenty about covenant in this forum so consult that content and then ask me how I define the CoR relevant to answers already provided. Start with the fact sin is not the only thing from which scripture states creation is redeemed.

DM me if you start a new thread.

 

[Arial]

I disagree. It was not obeyed prior to Calvary, but it has been obeyed (with varying degrees of success) since then and that is due to the CoR..

Is that why almost every animal instinctively runs away from humans, even the redeemed? Is that why the divorce rate for Christians is the same as for non-Christians (50%)? Do you consider paving over acres and acres and acres of earth, destroying habitats etc. having dominion over the earth and caring for it according to God's moral mandates?

Yes, and I provided a brief, scripture-filled explanation how and why that implication is an accurate understanding of what is written.

Not true. Look.

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.

No scripture. Utter speculation and unsupported opinion presented as fact.

It is not. The command is not a human construct. The label is not, either. The label of the command is a product of English translation whereby the Hebrew "radah" is correctly understood as to have dominion, prevail, and rule.

That is not what I was calling a human construct.

Scripture says otherwise. Romans 5 does not specify which command was disobeyed. Genesis 1 and 2 provide two commands and Genesis 3 describes how both were ignored. Logic dictates that had Adam ruled as he had been commanded (over himself, the serpent, and everything around him) he never would have eaten the forbidden fruit. Protests without explanation do not refute any of that.

They most certainly do not prove the Covenant of Redemption had to be predicated in any way solely on Adam's fall into sin.

Tell me again, who said it was?

What God did was address what Adam said. It was Adam who initiated the explanation, and it was Adam who disclosed his awareness of nakedness (and shame = he had always been naked). God simply responded accordingly. That does not in any way negate the fact Adam was naked and ashamed as a direct consequence of his failure to rule. Had he obeyed the first command then he never would have disobeyed the second.

As long as you are happy with that, so be it.

Yep. I'd word it differently but that is the gist, and I have already posted that same position.

Sure you agree with that part but you have also said Adam being mortal means he would die.

In point of demonstrable fact, at the foundation of my viewpoint is the belief the CoR is much larger than Adam's fall into sin (it has greater fullness) so it cannot be accurately said the fullness of the CoR is absent when I make these points.

Which is why I said "seems like" and if it "sems like" that to me then it is not a false statement. The points you make and the way in which you make them seem bits and pieces that don't take into consideration the whole. And then you use them as arguing points.

 

[Josheb]

Is that why almost every animal instinctively runs away from humans, even the redeemed? Is that why the divorce rate for Christians is the same as for non-Christians (50%)? Do you consider paving over acres and acres and acres of earth, destroying habitats etc. having dominion over the earth and caring for it according to God's moral mandates?

Discounting the positive (otherwise known as a negative amplification). The facts are the gospel has spread all over the world, Christianity is the largest religion in the world, there are millions of Christians all over the world who victoriously apply the power and authority of God in their lives on a daily basis.

Not true. Look.


No scripture. Utter speculation and unsupported opinion presented as fact.

{Edit: Unnecessary and inflammatory}

The paragraph quoted references Genesis 1:28, Genesis 2:15 and 17, Romans 5:12 and 5:18, Matthew 17:18, and the many other occasions when Jesus rebuked the devil or demonic spirits. That paragraph demonstrably contains plenty of scripture, and every example was treated exactly as written. Just because it wasn't labeled or quoted does not mean it wasn't there.

That is not what I was calling a human construct.

Then the onus is on you, not me to define terms as you intend them to be understood and used in this discussion. Otherwise, theologically speaking, a human construct is a concept or framework developed by humans to make sense of or summarize conditions described in scripture. All religious doctrines are human constructs.

Tell me again, who said it was?

No one. I was just covering the base preemptively for the benefit of all the readers.

As long as you are happy with that, so be it......

Meh

Sure you agree with that part but you have also said Adam being mortal means he would die.

Yep, and provided an affirmative case for that position which was, and is still being, ignored.

Which is why I said "seems like" and if it "sems like" that to me then it is not a false statement.

Except that it doesn't "seem" like it at all and in a civil and calm, listening and not just speaking conversation I'd have been asked for clarification rather than told a subjective interpretation . If anyone reads through these four pages of posts a list of questions I have asked that remain unanswered will result. Granted, the posts were lengthy and both the topic and the posts complex, but there's no justification for anyone to tell another what his or her posts "seem" like, especially if that subjectivity is the basis of criticism and personal commentary.

The points you make and the way in which you make them seem bits and pieces that don't take into consideration the whole. And then you use them as arguing points.

The facts in evidence demonstrably prove I have surveyed scripture more diversely and more widely than any other poster in this thread. Whether or not it was recognized, I have drawn from Genesis, the Law, the prophets, the gospels, and the epistolary.

Most importantly..... Post #77 does absolutely nothing to advance the conversation relevant to the basic points I have brought to this op , despite the unfettered opportunity to do so.



The question of divine intent relative to Adam's fall into sin is a long-debated question. I think the question is a distraction, a diversion from the larger truths of scripture because God needn't have any specific intent regarding Adam's fall into sin because His eternally existing Covenant of Redemption preemptively covered that event without any need for a special or particular intent being necessary. The question of intent is generally treated as a given without justification, and that proves to be the case on this occasion. The question was asked. I did listen for the answer(s). I'd have gladly engaged any effort to provide that foundation, but none occurred. I was not the only one here who questioned the matter of intent and sought clarification and consensus on the matter. I have provided a scripture based and scripturally laden case for an alternative point of view completely consistent with both Covenant Theology and the doctrine of the Covenant of Redemption and tried to civilly and calmly answer every question asked in that regard. What parity I received was not enduring and the discussion went past the point in which questions already answered were asked and I'd be unnecessarily repeating myself to posts which made demonstrably false claims about those posts.

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?

The answer is "No, because no divine intent pertaining to Adam's fall into sin existed relative to the pre-existing Covenant of Redemption."

There is no specific verse in scripture stating such an intent existed. Neither is there any reason to speculate one existed (at least none was provided in this opening post). The covenant between the members of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) cannot logically causally be predicated on sin (just covering the base preemptively), nor can the covenant be solely predicated on sin in any other way other than the fact the covenant covers that event as one of its many redemptive aspects. The aseity of the Godhead and His simplicity cannot be compromised by the CoR. Any requirement that sin must exist for the Covenant of Redemption to exist makes the Creator (and the Godhead's covenant) dependent on His creation, rather than the other way around. That's the whole point of the CoR! God is not dependent on creation; creation is dependent on God, and the Covenant of Redemption explains that position as it pertains to covenant relationship within the Godhead (which begets the Christological covenant with humanity) and as it pertains to the work of God redeeming a creation He designed to be corruptible and mortal with the purpose of creating creatures in whom He could/would dwell. It is not necessary to postulate a specific intent regarding Adam's fall into sin. The design specifications of (limited) volitional agency and corruptibility are sufficient to explain that event without an unjustified appeal to special divine intent.


Various other details and relevant explanations supporting that position were provided.

 

[John Bauer]

That is one unjustified presupposition upon another.

Josh is objecting to something that is very common in theological and philosophical discourse, namely, assuming x when arguing for y. We routinely assume a host of things when making a case (e.g., the existence of God is assumed when arguing for his omniscience). Conditional arguments are standard in theology precisely because so many loci are contested.

To assume a supralapsarian reading of the pactum salutis for the sake of argument—the argument being whether or not God intended that Adam would fall—is a dialectically legitimate move because it functions as a conditional proposition. My statement concerns the coherence of the framework, not proof of the framework itself. A supralapsarian reading is being presented conditionally to show that, within this framework, the question of divine purpose in the fall has a coherent answer. Conditional reasoning doesn't require prior justification of every premise; if it did, no internal critique or hypothetical argument would ever be possible. A person may dispute the truth of any particular premise, but that belongs to a separate discussion from this one.

The sentence ("Practically by definition this implicates...") is self-contradictory nonsense. It's word salad.

It is not self-contradictory, it is English grammar. "Practically" is an adverb meaning "in effect" or "as a matter of functional implication." My statement is indicating functional entailment (vs. strict identity). As the eternal counsel among the persons of the Trinity, the pactum salutis "as a matter of functional implication" belongs to the eternal, pre-creation decree—or, to map it to the original statement, "As a matter of functional implication, this entails a pre-creation intent."

Granted, this sort of language sits in the register of analytical or academic prose; it takes comfort with layered logical relations and the ability to process a compressed argumentative move.

The word "practically" means almost, which means not quite.

Sure. It also means what I said just above. Interestingly, my meaning is the first definition listed at Dictionary.com, while Josh's meaning is the fourth definition.

practically

[prak-tik-lee]

adverb

1. in effect; virtually.
   
   
   "It is practically useless to protest."
   ​
2. in a practical manner.
   
   
   "to think practically."
   ​
3. from a practical point of view.
   
   
   "Practically speaking, the plan is not very promising."
   ​
4. almost; nearly.
   
   
   "Their provisions were practically gone."​

 

[John Bauer]

Completely false and misrepresentative.

As the reader can verify easily, it was neither of those things. You said that Arial and I should "give consideration to [the] whole scripture and not just what theologians you've read have said about the covenant of redemption." Both parts of that statement are assumed and imposed on us, which I described as presumptuous, insulting, and inaccurate—because it is.

What I did do was post lengthy and detailed explanations that explained how and why the premise of intent is unnecessary and how the whole of scripture provides a basis for understanding redemption (and the covenant thereof) without predicating it solely on sin's existence.

None of that is what I had called presumptuous, insulting, and inaccurate.

Also: Literally nobody is predicating the covenant of redemption "solely on sin's existence," or construing it "in any way to make God dependent upon sin"—which makes it truly and genuinely bewildering that you keep invoking that target and taking shots at it.

God does not have to intend or not intend sin and he most definitely does not have to meticulously make its occurrence.

The question in the opening post didn't ask about what God did or didn't have to do. Why are you attacking targets you invented?

The question was, "Did God intend that Adam would fall?" It's either yes or no, given the law of excluded middle. And it appears to me that your answer is, "No, for intent is unnecessary, not to mention irrelevant" (followed by convoluted eristic details).

Which is exactly what I said.

It is you who thinks we're making sin the ground of the covenant of redemption by linking the pactum salutis to the fall. And, since there is no such logical entailment, your thinking is mistaken.

It does [follow] if God intended sin decretively, as described in Post 15.

No, it does not follow. Here is why: The pactum salutis is not explained by the existence of sin; the existence of sin is explained by the pactum salutis. Sin is included within God's decree as an instrumental condition, not a foundational cause.

Taking it further, in a supralapsarian reading the pactum salutis logically preceded the decrees to create and to permit the fall. Sin is not the ground of the covenant of redemption but its foreordained field of manifestation. "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."

It does if "intent" is understood with the normal meaning of the word in ordinary usage (which I posted earlier).

That is precisely the equivocation I had identified and obviated—"In ordinary speech, ‘intend’ implies a single, univocal act of purpose, but Reformed theology recognizes a layered structure in God's will" (link)—an argument you did not interact with here.

If the CoR is understood to be more encompassing than sin, intent regarding sin is irrelevant. If sin is understood as a (natural) function of corruptibility and volitional agency (both of which are God-made and decretively intended by God) then all appeals to divine intent (thetical and antithetical) are unnecessary.

Uh ...

There is no need for a solution to a problem that did not need to be created in the first place.

This simply begs the question against a supralapsarian reading of the pactum salutis.

God had a pre-existing plan. Sin happened, but it's not of particular consequence to God's plan because God's plan, being much greater than any one single event in creation, already addressed every event within creation without God having to be concerned specifically about sin as a contingency to be addressed.

So, God's pre-existing plan included Adam falling? Did Arial just get an answer to her question?

[God] most definitely did not say to himself, "Oh my! I must make sure my plan does something about that sin thing. I better make sure my plan has a contingency for that inevitability." ... It is much more consistent with whole scripture to say God's response to both the inevitability and occurrence of sin ...

Again, this just begs the question against a supralapsarian reading of the pactum salutis.

That avoids the problem of something happening God did not intend and the problem of a lawmaker intending lawlessness.

Can God decree something he condemns?

We can't have a laissez-faire God. We cannot have a dependent God. We can't have a blind watchmaker God, either. Neither can we have a righteous and perfect God proactively causing unrighteousness and imperfection.

Nobody here is arguing for any of these things. Why are you inventing targets to attack in a response to my arguments?

 

[makesends]

Josh is objecting to something that is very common in theological and philosophical discourse, namely, assuming x when arguing for y. We routinely assume a host of things when making a case (e.g., the existence of God is assumed when arguing for his omniscience). Conditional arguments are standard in theology precisely because so many loci are contested.

To assume a supralapsarian reading of the pactum salutis for the sake of argument—the argument being whether or not God intended that Adam would fall—is a dialectically legitimate move because it functions as a conditional proposition. My statement concerns the coherence of the framework, not proof of the framework itself. A supralapsarian reading is being presented conditionally to show that, within this framework, the question of divine purpose in the fall has a coherent answer. Conditional reasoning doesn't require prior justification of every premise; if it did, no internal critique or hypothetical argument would ever be possible. A person may dispute the truth of any particular premise, but that belongs to a separate discussion from this one.

Not to claim to register anywhere near competent to argue with either of you: While I side with Josh on the legitimacy of both (three?) sides of lapsarianism, I see that the question of its validity is irrelevant in the end to what the supralapsarian considers in the matter of God intending the fall. The person who sees the fall as necessarily eternally destined from the beginning, (which I had thought until now a group including Josh), may indeed mistakenly consider supralapsarianism valid (not at all to say that opposing views are valid—if I was inclined to see lapsarianism as valid I would naturally gravitate toward supra-) but will also see that the whole of the council of God, and therefore Redemption, intended perfectly from the beginning, necessarily includes the fall.

I would like to believe that Josh is playing a part for argument's sake —not that he actually believes that sin was an unnecessary part of the need for redemption. When he pretends that the fact needs to be established that God intended for all things to come about as they have, he seems to be waiting for some poor sap like me to lay out the logical points from "omnipotence" to "first causer" to "logical results of causing". ALL THINGS, JOSH!! Nothing can come about but by God's intention. So all of it was part of what it took to make the end result. Maybe he wants someone to show that God is omnipotent? For my part, I will argue no other God.