Adam and the Fall

[Carbon]

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

I believe my answer to this would be limited (of course) as with all of us. But to give an answer, let me ask a question. What scripture reads about Pharouh, how Pharoah hardened his own heart, and Gopod hardened his heart, how does that work? I mean, did Pharoah harden his own heart as scripture seems to say, or did God harden Pharaoh's heart as it also says?
And if God hardened his heart, how so?

 

[Carbon]

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

Cant argue that!

 

[Carbon]

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.

Read.

 

[Josheb]

Read.

Same question to you as was asked @Arial.

How many times was the word "sin" used in that article?

 

[Carbon]

Same question to you as was asked @Arial.

How many times was the word "sin" used in that article?

Without looking again, I cant recall any. It wouldnt fit in the COD topic, would it?

 

[makesends]

Josheb said: 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.

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?

For @Josheb :

The answer is Yes.

God is the only uncaused fact. (All else is result of his causing—do I need to prove that, or are we good, here?)
God knew that Adam would fall before he caused anything.
God caused everything anyway,
Thus we can see that God INTENDED that Adam would fall.

 

[Carbon]

Josheb said: 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.

For @Josheb :

The answer is Yes.

God is the only uncaused fact. (All else is result of his causing—do I need to prove that, or are we good, here?)
God knew that Adam would fall before he caused anything.
God caused everything anyway,
Thus we can see that God INTENDED that Adam would fall.

Can't argue that.

 

[Josheb]

Without looking again, I cant recall any. It wouldnt fit in the COD topic, would it?

I don't know what "COD" is, but an exposition of the Covenant of Redemption relevant to God intending/not intending Adam's fall does fit in the discussion of this op.

So how many times is the word "sin" mentioned?

 

[Josheb]

Josheb said: 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.

For @Josheb :

The answer is Yes.

God is the only uncaused fact. (All else is result of his causing—do I need to prove that, or are we good, here?)
God knew that Adam would fall before he caused anything.
God caused everything anyway,
Thus we can see that God INTENDED that Adam would fall.

Post #106 is a little misleading because it reads is if my answer to the question asked in the op is "Yes, and 'yes, because there can be no other cause of anything other than God," and that is not my answer.

My answer is "No, because it is improper to presuppositionally assume particular divine intent regarding Adam's disobedience,"* and I, therefore, think it incumbent upon anyone who thinks intent relevant to provide a scripture-based rational case for that necessity.

God being the only uncaused fact does not make that case. Neither does God omniscient foreknowledge. The statement "God caused everything anyway," is factually, logically, an logically incorrect and that God is a much lesser god than the God of scripture. Any superior life form can make action figures that do only what they are made to do. All the human creatures living today can do that, even in their sinful stated. That statement, and its strict determinism 1) does not exalt God; it diminishes Him and 2) is wholly inconsistent with Covenant Theology and the Covenant of Redemption (which are stipulations of the op). Covenant Theology and the covenant of Redemption openly reject the position God caused sin. WCF .1 explicitly states God is not the author of sin. Furthermore, the op does not ask about cause. It asks about intent. Did God intend Adam's disobedience. God intending the means of Adam's disobedience is not identical nor synonymous with God causing Adam to disobey or God intending Adam to disobey.


If everything in the last stanza, that syllogism, of Post 106 is intended to be your answer to the op, then I will leave the op to discuss that position with you while I await an explanation for the necessity of specific divine intent regarding Adam's fall. I find the third statement in that stanza unscriptural, illogical, inconsistent with the theological parameters stipulated by the op and, therefore, untenable for the reasons I have already posted.

While AI is never considered authoritative of anything, I encourage everyone to do a little experiment and Google, "did god intend the fall of adam into sin?" and read the resutlts. Then modify the search request to.....

"did god intend the fall of adam into sin? ligonier"
"did god intend the fall of adam into sin? rc sproul"
"did god intend the fall of adam into sin? john white"
"did god intend the fall of adam into sin? james frame"
"did god intend the fall of adam into sin? aw pink"
"did god intend the fall of adam into sin? john calvin"
"did god intend the fall of adam into sin? covenant theology"
"did god intend the fall of adam into sin? theopedia"
"did god intend the fall of adam into sin? monergism.com"

It does not take long. In fact, because y'all can simply copy and paste the request, it will to you less time than it took me. Your results will likely differ from mine because the search algorithm tailors results to the individual's past internet usage but I think everyone will find some surprises. Many articles addressing the inquiry will also be generated but they will either answer the question similarly, or not actually answer the specific question at all (it's very common for the search results' articles to addrss the question by replacing "intent" with "cause" or "fall" with "original sin," etc. Y'all can also, if feeling so inclined, modify the request by replacing the word "intend" with "cause," but the general consensus in the thread appears to be that intent and cause are not synonymous so those results will be outside the purview of the op's specifics.​

* The use of the word "fall" has been accepted but, technically the theological use of "fall" pertains to what happened after Adam disobeyed God, not the disobedience itself. Adam disobeyed God, sin entered the world, and he and the world fell into sin.
.

 

[Arial]

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

Here is my whole sentence in its context.

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.

Your above response to a sentence broken from it fullness and broken from the context is NR.

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.

You have no proof of that, only maybe some scriptures interpreted that way. What the Bible neither explicitly states nor implies is that Satan sinned in the Garden, or somewhere else on earth and them snuck into the Garden. The fact that the disobedience was attributed to one man is immaterial here. Sin came into our nature and our sinning into our world throug one man. But a curse and a promise of annihilation were given to that serpent that gave us the forward thrust of the plans of the CoR beginning. That seed that was going to crush his head by redeeming them and the world from what the serpent deceived Eve into doing. He was not counted blameless.

Romans 5 states otherwise.

Rom 5 does not say that sin first came into existence in Adam. It says that is how it got into all of us.

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.

God did not give us dominion over spiritual beings. He gave us dominion over the earth.

If God and His plan of redemption is dependent upon the existence of sin, then the aseity of God is compromised.

His plan is not dependent upon the existence of sin. No one but on one said it was so tilting at windmills. It was established to get rid of sin that already existed and was active in Satan and all the angels that fell. I am just saying where it existed, I am not opening this up to a discussion of angels. It is dependent on nothing. Very strange wording in your sentence.

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.

All God does providentially is a result of his ordaining. It does not make God culpable. That is what an A'ist would say.

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.

Rather than obey the edict, is will presume it never does. Does that prove something?

 

[John Bauer]

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.

That highlights what is, for me, the most confusing thing about the position Josh is defending: God ordaining something without any intention (i.e., intention is unnecessary and irrelevant). That appears utterly incoherent. If you agree that God ordained x, then by implication you agree that he intended x. To deny that God's decrees express his will is theologically incoherent. (To decree is to will; to will is to intend.)

 

[John Bauer]

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

Read it. Does it conflict with anything I have said? (No.)

Edited to add:

How many times is the word "sin" used? None. How many times is sin mentioned? Seventeen.

Note: To employ the same analogy used by Sproul, apart from the paragraph that uses the analogy, the word "Trinity" likewise does not appear in the article but the concept is found throughout.

 

[Josheb]

Read it. Does it conflict with anything I have said? (No.)

Never said any such conflict existed.

Edited to add:

How many times is the word "sin" used? None. How many times is sin mentioned? Seventeen.

That is incorrect. Check again and, after re-checking, would you please provide the correct answer.

Note: To employ the same analogy used by Sproul, apart from the paragraph that uses the analogy, the word "Trinity" likewise does not appear in the article but the concept is found throughout.

Irrelevant.

 

[Josheb]

Rather than obey the edict, is will presume it never does. Does that prove something?

Yes. Now would you please go back to the article and check the number of times "fall" and "intent" occur? There is an op-relevant point to this.

 

[Arial]

Yes. Now would you please go back to the article and check the number of times "fall" and "intent" occur. There is an op-relevant point to this.

Just make your point Josh.

 

[Josheb]

Just make your point Josh.

Not without a consensus on the evidence.

When done with that investigation, give some consideration to doing the exercise I suggested in Post 109. Ask AI the questions I listed, beginning with, "did god intend the fall of adam into sin?"

I have to step out but I'll be back and about 3 hours.

 

[Arial]

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.

You have moved the goal post from "Did God intend (my usage of that word already explained repeatedly) that Adam would fall." to "God intended sin." and then asked that the goal post you have set be substantiated. Sin already existed as has been shown. The CoR is getting rid of it, forever. As long as you persist in maintaining that sin came into existence in Adam, you will be unable to hear or accept or understand what anyone else says. It rigs the discussion.

 

[Arial]

Not without a consensus on the evidence.

When done with that investigation, give some consideration to doing the exercise I suggested in Post 109. Ask AI the questions I listed, beginning with, "did god intend the fall of adam into sin?"

I have to step out but I'll be back and about 3 hours.

Guess we will never know your point then. I personally don't take kindly to demands made of me in order to attempt to control the narrative. And to do so is just bad forum etiquette Just saying.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

And this from myself, a Reformed Baptist, gets a hearty 'Amen"

 

[JesusFan]

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

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.

Romans 5 states otherwise.

Romans 5 states otherwise.

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.

Which is not a point in dispute.

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 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.

Satan rebellion caused sin to enter into the Creation of God and forced many angels to fall with him out of the heavenly realm