Adam and the Fall

[Arial]

My answer to the question asked is also "No," but my reasons for saying no are different. I say the question regarding whether or not God intended that Adam would fall assumes God had to have a specific, particular intent specifically regarding that specific, particular event and I do not believe that assumption is necessary. I asked about that and have not received an answer.

Well, you did receive an answer to that theory, though it was not worded that way exactly (post #98, my response post #99 and that post was never responded to except to congratulate me on having read the link you posted and then tell me to read it again and answer two more questions about the appearance of a "word").

Based on the posts, it appears some respondents to the op do think God did intend that Adam would fall and they do not discriminate between intent and ordain (or permit).

Maybe because they understood it in the sense of "intentionally" which was correct. Or they had seen the clarification made by me as to ordaining and decreeing put into theological terms. In any case, the above statement is a bit of a red herring. The thread is not about what some respondents did or didn't do.

At least one poster has suggested meticulous causation

Irrelevant as the thread is not about what one poster suggested. That is something that should be discussed with that one poster. Editing one's post to weed out the unnecessary, saves space.

I preemptively broached those matters in an effort to preclude that content - or have those holding to strict determinism anticipate criticism of that position but those efforts were treated with "Who here has said that?" type of responses. I have asked several questions about determinism but none of them have been answered. I thought to move on because I was starting to repeat already posted content unnecessarily, but new posts prompted me to think some consensus might yet be gathered.

More unnecessary commentary.

There were several points to be made with my requests to read the linked-to article and do the AI search but chief among them were 1) it is possible understand the Covenant of Redemption without ever specifically mentioning the words "fall," "intent," and/or "fall,"

That may be true, but it is irrelevant as it is not the OP question that was asked.

2) None of the theologians I have mentioned believed God intended that Adam would fall, but 3) none of them delve into the matter of intent other than to say the fall of Adam was allowed or permitted, and allowed as a function of the larger intended plan. I tried a variety of approaches and haven't received much collaboration.

2. What was the question that was asked of AI to garner that information? In a separate post I will give you ChatGPT response to my direct questions and what Reformed theologians had to say about it. Question 1. Did God intend for Adam to fall? 2. Is the fall of Adam into sin a necessary aspect of the Covenant of Redemption.


.

 

[Arial]

@Josheb From ChatGPT

Question: Did God intend Adam to fall?
Answer:

1. Reformed / Classical Calvinist View​

Short answer: Yes and no, in different senses.

God intended (decretively) that the Fall would happen​

• In the Reformed view, nothing happens outside God’s eternal decree.
• Therefore, the Fall was foreordained—part of God’s plan to reveal His justice and mercy.
• This does not mean God is the author of sin; it means He sovereignly ordained that free creatures would fall.

A common summary:

• God willed the Fall to occur (decretive will)
• God did not delight in or command sin (preceptive will)

God intended the Fall as part of His overarching plan, but He did not morally approve of sin.

Why this view says God intended it​

• Without the Fall, there is no redemption, no incarnation, no display of grace.
• Jesus is described as the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,” implying the Fall was not an accident or surprise.

Key thinkers: Augustine, Calvin, Turretin, Bavinck.

Question: Is the fall of Adam into sin a necessary aspect of the CoR?

Short answer (Reformed theology):
Yes. In classic Reformed thought, the Fall had to occur if the Covenant of Redemption (pactum salutis) was to be fulfilled. The Fall is not an accidental prelude—it is the necessary historical condition that makes the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son meaningful.

But why this is so depends on how one views the logic of God’s decrees. Here is the detailed explanation.

1. What the Covenant of Redemption is​

The Covenant of Redemption is the eternal intra-Trinitarian agreement in which:

• The Father chooses a people and gives them to the Son.
• The Son agrees to become incarnate, obey, and give His life to redeem them.
• The Spirit agrees to apply Christ’s work to the elect.

This covenant is about redemption—saving sinners.

Therefore, if there are no sinners, this covenant has no object.

2. Why the Fall is necessary within the logic of the Covenant​

In Reformed theology, the Covenant of Redemption presupposes:​

• a chosen people who need saving
• a Mediator who will take their punishment
• a plan for incarnation, atonement, and resurrection

All of this presupposes sin.
Thus, the Fall is the historical prerequisite for the covenant’s execution.

A common theological formula:​

No Fall → No sin → No need of atonement → No Covenant of Redemption to fulfill.

In this sense, the Fall is not merely foreseen; it is integral to the eternal decree of redemption.

3. Is the Fall part of the Covenant of Redemption itself?​

Not directly.
The Fall is not one of the stipulations or promises inside the covenant.

But:
It is necessarily assumed.
You cannot have an agreement to save sinners unless sinners will exist.

So theologians distinguish:

• The Fall is not a term of the covenant.

• The Fall is a necessary presupposition of the covenant’s mission.

4. Why Reformed theologians say the Fall must have been decreed​

The logic goes like this:

1. The Covenant of Redemption is eternal (before creation).
2. It concerns the redemption of specific people.
3. Redemption only makes sense if those people are fallen.
4. Therefore, the decree of the Fall must logically precede (or be coordinated with) the decree of redemption.

This is why Reformed theologians say the Fall was:

not an accident, not a mere permission, but part of God’s sovereign plan.

Me: All of the above has been stated one way or another by every poster that has been in disagreement with your position(s) that you have set forth.

 

[John Bauer]

Nice move of the goalposts. I specified the word sin. I did so for a reason.

No shifting of goal posts. You asked about the word sin and I answered that question: "None." Clear, direct, succinct.

Then, after answering it, I provided some additional context for the readers—which perhaps you didn't want them to have?—that although sin was not mentioned by that word, it was mentioned a total of 17 times.

So, both you and the readers have my answer in full context.

Alas, we may never know what your point was. (Josh announced that he is unwatching the thread and moving on.)

Most CT theologians say no, God did not intend that Adam would fall; he ordained the fall as part of his plan. ... The specific act of disobedience was permitted

Here, once again, we have Josh divorcing God's decree from his will, claiming that God ordained but did not intend that Adam would fall. Just in case anyone considers that rhetorical move tempting, I would reiterate the point I made earlier—which was neither addressed nor refuted—that it's utterly incoherent to claim that God ordained x without any intention (i.e., intention is unnecessary and irrelevant). Such a position denies that God's decree expresses his will—for to decree is to will, and to will is to intend.

I would also note that "most CT theologians" are infralapsarian, so of course they would disagree with the position I'm defending as a coherent answer to the question asked in the opening post. Unfortunately, none of them are here to interact academically with my argument, so it stands unrefuted. (That is disappointing for me because I love rational pushback.)

They will say God did not cause the fall, ...

Here we have Josh ignoring the counter-argument (possibly because he didn't see it), which I shall repeat here with added emphases:

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

I say the question [in the opening post]—regarding whether or not God intended that Adam would fall—assumes God had to have a specific, particular intent specifically regarding that specific, particular event and I do not believe that assumption is necessary. I asked about that and have not received an answer.

As the reader can easily verify, he did receive an answer—it is theologically incoherent to divorce God's decree from his will—but he never addressed that, despite his professed desire for an answer.

Based on the posts, it appears some respondents to the op do think God did intend that Adam would fall and they do not discriminate between intent and ordain (or permit).

Unlike some of us here, Josh does discriminate between decree and intention. If only he had spent the time explaining how it's not at all incoherent to divorce God's decree from his will, or to claim that God can will x without intending it. His position asserts a break somewhere in one of those.

There were several points to be made with my requests to read the linked article and do the AI search, but chief among them were: (1) It is possible to understand the covenant of redemption without ever specifically mentioning the words "fall," "intent," and/or "sin." ...

Yes, it is possible to understand the covenant of redemption without ever mentioning those words—because stand-in words can be used. However, it is impossible to understand the covenant of redemption apart from those concepts, as R. C. Sproul clearly demonstrated in the linked article—an interesting discussion Josh quickly abandoned (because it would shipwreck his argument).

Thus bringing this post full circle: As I said, sin was mentioned a total of 17 times in that article, although not by that word.

 

[JesusFan]

So your not sure of the details, you just know He did? Do you think God put thoughts in his head, controled his anger, making him more angry? Etc...

One account stated Satan caused David, another God, but end result result is the same, as it as Yahweh behind what happened to David

 

[JesusFan]

Romans 5 states sin's entrance into the world was due to one man's disobedience, not Satan.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.

One man, not one fallen angel.

Romans 5:18
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

One transgression, not two (one by Satan and another by Adam). Sin's entrance into the world is attributed to Adam, not Satan. It is, admittedly a curious thing for God to inspire Paul to write because the serpent was in the garden prior to Genesis 3:6.

Yep. None of that is in dispute and all of it has already been broached and addressed earlier in the thread. The op asks about whether or not it was God's intent that Adam would fall, not whether or not God ordained Adam to fall. If you haven't done so already, reading Post #15 might clarify the distinctions between those two words.

satan fall was the very first time sin entered into the Creation, as there was war breaking out in the Heavenly realm at that time, correct?

 

[JesusFan]

No shifting of goal posts. You asked about the word sin and I answered that question: "None." Clear, direct, succinct.

Then, after answering it, I provided some additional context for the readers—which perhaps you didn't want them to have?—that although sin was not mentioned by that word, it was mentioned a total of 17 times.

So, both you and the readers have my answer in full context.

Alas, we may never know what your point was. (Josh announced that he is unwatching the thread and moving on.)



Here, once again, we have Josh divorcing God's decree from his will, claiming that God ordained but did not intend that Adam would fall. Just in case anyone considers that rhetorical move tempting, I would reiterate the point I made earlier—which was neither addressed nor refuted—that it's utterly incoherent to claim that God ordained x without any intention (i.e., intention is unnecessary and irrelevant). Such a position denies that God's decree expresses his will—for to decree is to will, and to will is to intend.

I would also note that "most CT theologians" are infralapsarian, so of course they would disagree with the position I'm defending as a coherent answer to the question asked in the opening post. Unfortunately, none of them are here to interact academically with my argument, so it stands unrefuted. (That is disappointing for me because I love rational pushback.)



Here we have Josh ignoring the counter-argument (possibly because he didn't see it), which I shall repeat here with added emphases:

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

As the reader can easily verify, he did receive an answer—it is theologically incoherent to divorce God's decree from his will—but he never addressed that, despite his professed desire for an answer.



Unlike some of us here, Josh does discriminate between decree and intention. If only he had spent the time explaining how it's not at all incoherent to divorce God's decree from his will, or to claim that God can will x without intending it. His position asserts a break somewhere in one of those.



Yes, it is possible to understand the covenant of redemption without ever mentioning those words—because stand-in words can be used. However, it is impossible to understand the covenant of redemption apart from those concepts, as R. C. Sproul clearly demonstrated in the linked article—an interesting discussion Josh quickly abandoned (because it would shipwreck his argument).

Thus bringing this post full circle: As I said, sin was mentioned a total of 17 times in that article, although not by that word.

Would not the real question though on this discussion be what was the basis for the Cross of Christ that had been establish must happen to the coming Messiah, was it before or after the Fall of Adam?
I am just asking this, as that Supra/Infra in houne debate between Reformed and Calivinst always been hard to get a clear grasp on the differences associated with each position held

 

[Carbon]

but end result result is the same, as it as Yahweh behind what happened to David

I agree.
I was just wondering if you had an idea of how God worked that out.

 

[Josheb]

satan fall was the very first time sin entered into the Creation, as there was war breaking out in the Heavenly realm at that time, correct?

Do I need to repeat what I stated in the previous post? Despite the fact the serpent was there in the garden, scripture explicitly attributes the entrance of sin into the world to one man's disobedience.

 

[CrowCross]

Do I need to repeat what I stated in the previous post? Despite the fact the serpent was there in the garden, scripture explicitly attributes the entrance of sin into the world to one man's disobedience.

I don't disagree with that.
Those verses are describing the fall of Adam. Not Satan and the angels that rebelled with him.

 

[Josheb]

I don't disagree with that.
Those verses are describing the fall of Adam. Not Satan and the angels that rebelled with him.

Tell @JesusFan

 

[CrowCross]

Tell @JesusFan

If @JesusFan disagrees he can tell me why.

Just where did Jesus fan disagree?

 

[Josheb]

If @JesusFan disagrees he can tell me why.

Just where did Jesus fan disagree?

My apologies. I did not make note of the thread's title and incorrectly assumed these last few posts were happening in the "From Fallen Angels to Adam....." thread. I do not wish to further undermine this thread so please post all future comments and inquiries HERE.

 

[JesusFan]

Do I need to repeat what I stated in the previous post? Despite the fact the serpent was there in the garden, scripture explicitly attributes the entrance of sin into the world to one man's disobedience.

Into the world, but Satan already brought sin into overall creation