Adam and the Fall

[Arial]

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.

It was the dominion mandate that you claimed is being obeyed since Calvary. It is the dominion mandate that I was addressing when I said it was not being obeyed. (Varying degrees of success is not obedience.)

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.

Let's unpack it and see if it is full of speculation and interpretive bias or not.

When Adam disobeyed God it was the dominion mandate he disobeyed, not merely the prohibition against eating the forbidden fruit.

The account of the fall does not mention the dominion mandate and a curse is given to the serpent (Gen 3:15) with a promise of the serpent's utter destruction. The ground is cursed and Adam subjected to hard labor in its productivity. He has lost some of his ability of dominion, but the command still remains as the responsibility of humankind. The dominion mandate is stating man's responsibility and not meeting that responsibility had no penal code attached to it in the scripture.

Had Adam subdued the serpent and ruled over him we would not be in this predicament.

One could suppose that but nowhere in Scripture does it say that in connection with Adam. It is a "what if" statement and "what if" is irrelevant. Everything happened the way God ordained it to happen and there was no other possibility. A "what if" does not make a valid support for what is being proposed as fact. So, speculation.

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 was not ordained to do as you say he should have done, and nothing of the sort is mentioned in the account of the fall. Therefore, it is not the issue in that account. It is not the teaching that is being taught. Failing to rebuke or slay the serpent would not have given Adam, and the rest of mankind, the knowledge of evil. Only that one tree would. Plus, the Bible does not state where Adam was when the serpent was speaking to Eve or when Eve offered the fruit to Adam and he ate. So, speculation.

He should have rebuked the serpent, perhaps even slain him before ever considering taking the fruit from Eves hand.

That is just a "shoulda, woulda, coulda" and is not pertinent to establish doctrines or as support for a claim. Speculation.

 

[Eleanor]

I don't see it as a mistake...where the trinity said, whoops, we really messed up with Adam and Eve....Number 2, you'll have to die on a cross.

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.

Ro 9:22-23 tells you all you need to know. . .

 

[Josheb]

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).

Appeals to common practice are a form of argumentum ad populum.

Conditional arguments are standard in theology precisely because so many loci are contested.

Any conditional syllogism that is predicated on a false conditon is irrational.

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.

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.



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."​

Unblessedly, the forums rules prevent me from deconstructing that to list the multiple fallacies contained in Post 78. The net result, however is that nothing new has been said, the sophistry has increased, and the exchange s further off topic.

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.

As opposed to not considering whole scripture in addition to theologians? Or using scripture partially or selectively? Those metrics are not imposed by me.


Sophistry

 

[Arial]

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.

The above quote is what I called 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.

You then accused me of calling the command/mandate a human construct and I simply posted that the command was not what I called a human construct. Which resulted in you telling me the above. I quoted the original post I was referring to show you that the "onus" demand is unnecessary as what I was calling a human construct is self-explanatory in the post it referred to.

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

So, changing the subject and question of the OP as though it asked "Was Adam's fall predicated on Adam falling into sin?" And you have on a number of occasions brought that into the discussion as though a person or persons was saying that and had it clarified what they were saying instead of that. It seems you are still saying it.

Except that it doesn't "seem" like it at all

It seems like it to me Josheb, and therefore, it seems like to me. To argue that it doesn't seems like it to me because it shouldn't for your own reasons is just argumentative and self-defensive. (Bit of a mod hat intervention there.)

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 .

Isn't the "seems like" itself an invitation to clarify if what it seems like is not the case? I would have to make it known somehow what something looked like which would be how I was interpreting it. Don't demand the impossible.

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.

I don't know of any question that I have not answered or that anyone else has not answered unless, of cours, because of the "lengthy" and here descried as complex (and earlier more accurately described by me as covering multiple issues and ideas in one paragraph and the begging by me for you to play editing professor to your own posts before posting), they or I quit the mental exhaustion of plowing through them in order to respond to each point.

What there is no justification for is telling another how he or she should pose their understanding of what you are saying, and automatically presume they are criticizing you and offering personal commentary, if they pose their understanding of what you say as a "it seems like". Also, there is no justification for then posting ad nauseum off topic about the fact they said, "it seems like".

 

[Josheb]

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.

Ooooo..... I never said sin was an unnecessary part of the need for redemption. What I did say is that a covenant of Redemption need not be predicated solely on the occurrence of sin and the CoR cannot be causally dependent on the existence of sin. And I believe I explicitly stated the CoR does, in fact, address humanity's hamartiological need. I do sometimes argue Socratically and play the so-called devil's advocate but that's not what's going on with my asserting specific intent is not needed for the CoR to have legitimate explanatory power.

 

[Arial]

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

Not true. I have covered it from my view any number of times.

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.

The OP is not about you and it is not about one person proving how much better they are than all the rest. (A neutral remark and not a violation of any rule so don't go hitting the report button. It is things like the above that completely derail a thread and provoke it into being about individuals).

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.

I completely agree. It is your post. Do better.

 

[JesusFan]

Hs determining it does not mean he caused it.

So ot was His Will to have it come to pass, but he did not direct cause it to come to pass?

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Think question is was his intent to use their decision to cause that Fall, or else to cause the Fall directly Himself?

 

[Josheb]

I don't know of any question that I have not answered....

The necessity of particular intent has not been explained or justified. There are five pages worth of posts into this discussion, and no one has provided any justification for the question this op asks.

The closest anyone has come is @Carbon saying, "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," @Arial's "What God intends to occur always occurs. There would be no contingency involved if God intended Adam to fall for his larger purpose," and @makesends, "Nothing can come about but by God's intention." Aside from @John Bauer's excellent commentary in Post 15, in which the meaning of intent is considered, no one is discussing specific intent in any detail. Joh was the only one to dsicriminate between decretive intent and permissive intent (and was repudiated for doing so). The logic of that position is faulty. If I did not intend for my chute to open it wouldn't open. If I did not intend to go splat on the ground below my chute would not open. If I did not intend to make it safely to the ground, then my chute will not open. There are many ways the matter of intent can be applied to causal and non-causal relationships. If Carbon's position is to be taken exactly as written, then the kind of strict determinism implicit in that conditional argument is a statistical and normative outlier within Calvinism/Covenant Theology. It's more JMac (hard determinist) than Sproul or White, or even Frame or Pink (varying degrees of compatibilism). The question asked in this op is,

"did God intend that Adam would fall?"

One of the most important questions that could be asked about this question has not been answered. What is the basis for assuming specific divine intent is necessary for Adam to fall into sin?

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.

So, it is evident the matter of specific intent hasn't been fully resolved. Apart from what I (and to a lesser degree, John) have posted, the question of how specific divine intent in Adam's fall into sin does not make God culpable for sin is still lurking. In the case of Post 16, culpability is denied because divine aseity and the dependency of the CoR starting with one man. I've broached both matters and that content also has gone unanswered. It is true, if God intends something will happen, then it will occur. It is not true, if God does not intend something it will not happen. There's a simple solution to all this.

The question that hasn't been answered is, "How is the presupposition of specific, decretive, providential intent regarding Adam's fall justified?" Presumably, such a case exists (and is more substantive than "if God didn't intend it then it would not happen"). If so, then that case should have been posted, civilly and calmly, listening and not just speaking, pages ago when the question of validity first appeared.


So, no, not all the questions asked have been answered. The givens of the op have not been justified.

 

[Arial]

The necessity of particular intent has not been explained or justified. There are five pages worth of posts into this discussion, and no one has provided any justification for the question this op asks.

You indicated multiple questions had not been answered. The OP does not use the word "particular" as to its intent, so you need to define what particular intent you refer to. But "intent" as clarified by @John Bauer #15 and my intent in using the word intent identified in post #16. Everything that followed should have taken those posts into consideration. However, there was enough in my posts to you previous to that which should have made the position of the question clear.

A question in an OP offered up for discussion does not need to be justified. Answers need to be given by those who respond either yes or no. Your answer was the question was a red herring and that was disproven.

The rest of your post is just asking us to rehash it all again.

 

[Arial]

So, it is evident the matter of specific intent hasn't been fully resolved

It hasn't been resolved in agreement with all that you say.

The question that hasn't been answered is, "How is the presupposition of specific, decretive, providential intent regarding Adam's fall justified?" P

Start a thread where that is the question.

 

[Arial]

So ot was His Will to have it come to pass, but he did not direct cause it to come to pass?

He ordained that it would come to pass for the purposes of the fulfillment of the CoR. He decreed how it would come to pass---through the fall of Adam---but he did not make Adam fall. The CoR is full blown within itself---purpose and means (the plan). It is the plan that plays out in time, in history, and everything we see in our Bible is that plan unfolding towards its goal. And everything, including the fall of Adam is necessary in order for it to reach its intended goal (which we see through the epistles but in summation in Rev 21:1-8). Jesus' second exclamation of "It is finished!" The first "It is finished!" was when his earthly work was complete.

 

[Arial]

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

Sometimes a question is just a question with no intent of distraction or diversion away from the larger truths of Scripture. There is no one theological subject that if asked about would not be doing the same thing in that case. The Bible is one whole story. Points relating to the question can be brought in but shouldn't be brought in a way that forces a diversion and distraction from the original question. I could list all the ways in which that has been done but am not putting myself through the mental exhaustion. I am sure they will appear as I continue through this post and I will deal with them without naming them as diversions and distractions. It will probably have to be divided into more than one post due to the many directions it takes.

because His eternally existing Covenant of Redemption preemptively covered that event without any need for a special or particular intent being necessary.

That is like saying the Covenant was conceived without intent or plan. It is like saying Adam fell through no intent of God as to ordaining the events of the plan. That his falling was a matter of happenstance and circumstance.

The question of intent is generally treated as a given without justification, and that proves to be the case on this occasion.

Again---that presumes you have access to what is in my mind. So, to treat the OP question as though I were treating it as a given, and base all your responses, accordingly, is egregious. For the record: I was not treating it as a given otherwise it would be stated as a given. And that was pointed out on page 1. Here we are on page 4, and the claim is still being made.

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.

The matter of what I meant by "intent" since it can have more than one nuance was brought up, but not as a presumptive accusation and the way I was using it was clarified by me. Post 16 pg 1.
Here we are in post whatever as it will not show up until page 5 and we are being told that the matter was never clarified.

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.

An alternative pov to what? Your presumption that the question was posed as a given? It has been shown and done so with scripturally laden consistent with the CoR, and Covenant theology posts, that your pov, as expressed, is inconsistent with Scripture on a number of points. Is it the disagreement with you that you object to? Or are you really not listening?

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.

That is your opinion of the parity. But why are you posting here in an OP that has a particular subject which we are supposed to be discussing, about all the wrongs that were done to you? That doesn't require an answer, and it certainly doesn't require yet another post or series of posts all about you and other persons.

Get back on topic.

 

[Arial]

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).

That God ordained the fall and decreed its means (his intentionally doing so) exists in the CoR, is integral to it and necessary. The scripture proof is his self-revealed aseity. Nothing is unknown by God because whatever is known is ordained. Either as first cause or by providence. If God did not intentionally (with purpose) ordain that Adam would fall, then there would be no reason for a covenant of redemption (which preceded everything that happened in time. The CoR is not predicated (based on) the fall, it is predicated on God's purpose. The fall was necessary for that purpose. Therefore, God ordained that Adam as federal head of mankind would fall.

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.

Sin did not come into existence in our history. It did not come into existence in Adam. It already existed. The rebellious, God hating, serpent already existed. So, the CoR was aimed straight at the destruction of sin and the serpent. See the "It is finished!" when Jesus completed his earthly work of acquiring redemption, and his second "It is finished!" in Rev 21:6.

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.

Non sequitur. It reaches a conclusion that does not apply directly to the question of whether or not Adam falling into sin was accidental or intentional of God's part. It diverts into other specific content of the CoR.

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.

However, it is perfectly acceptable to start a thread for a discussion that will postulate "intent". Several people expressed interest in doing so, including you.

 

[JesusFan]

He ordained that it would come to pass for the purposes of the fulfillment of the CoR. He decreed how it would come to pass---through the fall of Adam---but he did not make Adam fall. The CoR is full blown within itself---purpose and means (the plan). It is the plan that plays out in time, in history, and everything we see in our Bible is that plan unfolding towards its goal. And everything, including the fall of Adam is necessary in order for it to reach its intended goal (which we see through the epistles but in summation in Rev 21:1-8). Jesus' second exclamation of "It is finished!" The first "It is finished!" was when his earthly work was complete.

We are very finite humans, so for us to be able to fully understand how the Lord worked all of this out for his plans and purposes and glory, and for us to have a higher better state in the end after all all of this forces me to agree with Bible that His thoughts are infinite degree above our thoughts

 

[Arial]

We are very finite humans, so for us to be able to fully understand how the Lord worked all of this out for his plans and purposes and glory, and for us to have a higher better state in the end after all all of this forces me to agree with Bible that His thoughts are infinite degree above our thoughts

I agree when we try to find adequate language to express his ordaining and decreeing, we can only go so far. People have their own definitions contained within their own mind as to what certain words mean. What we can know from what is clearly given is that God has no evil in him to be the author of. No sin in him to be the author of. And we also know, if we are Reformed , that nothing happens that he does not allow to happen. Therefore, even the bad that we do, that he does not stop, is judgment or is working towards what he directs it to work towards, which is good.

 

[Josheb]

That God ordained the fall and decreed its means....

That is not the same thing as God decretively intending Adam's fall into sin.

Sin did not come into existence in our history.

Yes, it did. Not only is sin a post-creation event, but Satan's sinning didn't occur in heaven and he is not the one to whom scripture attributes sin's entrance into the world. Scripture explicitly states it was the disobedience of one man, not one fallen angel, that sin entered the world.

It did not come into existence in Adam.

Romans 5 states otherwise.

It already existed.

Romans 5 states otherwise.

The rebellious, God hating, serpent already existed.

Yes, he did. He existed in eternal bonds of darkness under the authority and power of both his Creator and those God appointed sovereign stewards over the earth.

So, the CoR was aimed straight at the destruction of sin and the serpent.

Which is not a point in dispute.

Non sequitur.

It's not non-sequitur. If God and His plan of redemption is dependent upon the existence of sin, then the aseity of God is compromised. If God providentially decreed Adam's fall into sin (as was previously asserted) instead of ordaining the fall and intending its means without authoring sin or doing violence to human volition and the causality of creation, then God is culpable. As was previously noted, there is significant difference between God determining (decretive will) Adam would fall, and God allowing (permissive will) Adam would fall. There are a variety of problems with the premise God determinatively caused Adam to disobey Him and God allowed Adam to disobey Him simply as a function of God's design of Adam's volitional faculties (intended means). Even in that case some discrimination is warranted because God provided Adam and Eve with volitional agency for good purposes, not evil ones.

• I, God, am giving you the ability to make choices for the specific purpose that you will disobey Me.
• I, God, am giving you the ability to make choices for the specific purpose that you will obey Me.
• I, God, am giving you the ability to make choices for the specific purpose that you will both obey and disobey Me.

And....


All those last few posts do is beg the question.

That God ordained the fall and decreed its means (his intentionally doing so) exists in the CoR, is integral to it and necessary.

That is just another way of saying God intended sin without providing any evidence specific divine intent was necessary or existent. It assumes as a given that which has to be substantiated.

 

[Josheb]

That God ordained the fall and decreed its means (his intentionally doing so) exists in the CoR, is integral to it and necessary......The CoR is not predicated (based on) the fall, it is predicated on God's purpose. The fall was necessary for that purpose.

The fall was ordained but the fall is not necessary for God's purpose. God ordained something unnecessary for His purpose. God has a covenant plan to redeem the world from the fall but that plan is not predicated on the fall. He has a plan to save the world that is not based on the fall from that which He is redeeming the world. God has a plan that is not predicated on that which He ordained and decreed its means.

Read this article. To any and all of you: Let me know when the article has been read.

 

[Arial]

Read this article. To any and all of you: Let me know when the article has been read.

I read it. What is your point? That those participating in the thread needed to be taught what the Covenant of Redemption is? It doesn't anything about the fall and it doesn't say anything that you said in this post. The ultimate purpose of the CoR is to glorify Christ, and for him. That has been stated clearly in this thread by at least two people, and I am one of them. However, the ultimate purpose of the Covenant is not the question raised in the OP.

The fall was ordained but the fall is not necessary for God's purpose.

Then why was it ordained? Does God ever do something that is not necessary?

God ordained something unnecessary for His purpose.

Then why was it ordained? Does God ever do something that is not necessary?

God has a covenant plan to redeem the world from the fall but that plan is not predicated on the fall.

The fall is included in the plan. I think that is the third time I have had to point that out. He is redeeming the world through the redemption of men. The brilliance and perfection of that is blinding. That is why God sits on his throne and laughs at all Christ deniers and those who rage against him. Think about it. How else could he do it and remain just. How else could he do it unless he came himself and substituted himself as a perfectly righteous man to satisfy his attribute of just against sin. How else could he destroy sin but to face it himself and conquer it?

God has a plan that is not predicated on that which He ordained and decreed its means.

It certainly is if that is what he ordained and decreed! Otherwise, he wouldn't have ordained and decreed it. Who do you think God is?

 

[Josheb]

I read it.

Great. Thank you.


Now go back and count the number of times the word "sin" is used. Let me and everyone else know the number.