Adam and the Fall

[Arial]

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?

 

[Josheb]

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?

No, because the question is a red herring.

[MOD HAT: Falsely accuses member of a specific logical fallacy. An opening post on a fresh topic can't be a red herring. Given the context Josheb subsequently explained, he appears to have meant something more like, "No, God did not intend that Adam would fall. In fact, this question points to an age-old theological distraction."
​

What God intended was for inherently mortal humans to die once and then face judgment (Heb. 9:27). Whether a person died having fallen or nor is immaterial to any intended fall because it was intended that humans be made corruptible, not already-corrupted. What God intended was for Jesus, who alone is the way to God, to be revealed in the last days of His redemptive plan, to live, die, resurrect, and ascend because that is the only way any human, sinner or not, was ever going to reach God and fulfill God's intent: a creature, a created vessel capable of housing God's own Spirit.

Sin was not in any way a concern, nor an obstacle, to what was always intended. To say otherwise would mean God was creating a contingency. He was making a caveat in case something He unexpected, or not wanted or intended, or simply something other than one, single, soilitary intent. To suggest God wanted sin's occurrence and intended that is untenable because that would compromise any claim of righteousness and perfection. It would necessarily mean a righteous creator wanted unrighteousness, a law making creator wanted lawlessness, an ever-faithful creator wanted faithlessness, a creator wanted decay, corruption, desolation and destruction. It is self-contradictory. That creator might be a god, but not a God, and definitely not the God of the Bible.

The Godhead had a pre-existing plan for all of creation. Adam disobeyed God and brought sin and transgressional death into the world. God shrugged His omni-attributed shoulders and said, "Meh. Got it already covered. It's not something I about which I need to be concerned." Humans, on the other hand, definitely need to be concerned.

Doctrinally speaking,

1. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions. (WCF 3.1 and .2)

• God ordained whatever happened.
• God intended not to be the author of sin.
• God intended not to violate the volitional agency of His creatures.
• God intended to establish the liberty or contingency of secondary causes.
• His knowledge of all that did/may/can/will happen is not dependent upon His examining the future.

Care must be taken not to create a condition wherein God is subjugated to circumstance, the Creator to His creation. It cannot be thought that God made a plan and then said, "Oh wait. Those humans might disobey Me, so I better add something to my plan to cover that contingency/possibility/probability/inevitability." The reverse must be true: all creation - and all that exists therein - is dependent upon the Creator. Therefore, when we speak doctrinally of God's "permissive will," or "permissive intent," that should be understood as God already addressed whatever occurs without his having to plan for it as a contingency. God did not intend or not-intend the fall. The fall is inconsequential to the plan.



.

 

[Arial]

No, because the question is a red herring.

Red herring fallacy: A red herring fallacy is an attempt to redirect a conversation away from the original topic.

How can the question of an opening OP be an attempt to redirect a conversation away from its own original topic?

What follows in your post is for the most part, the real red herring as it attempts to redirect the conversation completely to its own conversation. However I will deal with the particulars later.

Let's keep it civil and calm, listening and not just speaking, since I do disagree with you on some points.

 

[Josheb]

Red herring fallacy: A red herring fallacy is an attempt to redirect a conversation away from the original topic.

Yep. Assuming the fall is a matter of divine intent must first be justified, and the question itself does not establish that; it presuppositionally assumes it.

How can the question of an opening OP be an attempt to redirect a conversation away from its own original topic?

The question is not a question specific to this op. It is a question with a very long history in the debate over divine intent and, by extension, the nature of providence and divine attribute. The red herring did not begin with this op. It began when the first person asked whether or not God intended sin (the fall). The question's origin is not, therefore, solely attributable to the op (and neither, therefore, is my reply). Someone should have told the first person who raised that question long ago that the fall has nothing to do with divine intent. Logically speaking, the nature of sin is the opposite of divine intent (as my op-reply detailed but did not label as such). A Law Maker intending lawlessness is oxymoronic.

As an exercise in which the long-existing question is discussed, I did, however, answer the question asked so as to explain how and why the premise upon which the question has always been asked proves untenable. And I did so in diverse ways (first establishing some of what scripture states about divine intent, then providing a doctrinal response, and ending with the logical problems inherent in the original inquiry's presupposition).

What follows in your post is for the most part, the real red herring as it attempts to redirect the conversation completely to its own conversation.

Prove it.

However I will deal with the particulars later.

I patiently await the response.

Let's keep it civil and calm, listening and not just speaking, since I do disagree with you on some points.

?????


The question asked was answered, and answered civilly and calmly, albeit uncommonly. Most discussions on divine intent relevant to the fall are polarized (taking up one of the poles established by the question - either affirming divine intent or denying it). Rarely is any consideration given to the premise the fall's occurrence has nothing to do with what God intended. Had a third option been provided I might have answered accordingly but the only two options provided were yes or no. Given the two options available the best of the two was chosen but, if you'd like, I will amend my op-reply to say there is a third option: the option saying the answer is not limited to a simple dichotomy.

 

[Arial]

What God intended was for inherently mortal humans to die once and then face judgment (Heb. 9:27).

Are you saying that the whole point of creation within the Covenant of Redemption was for all men to die once and face judgement? Heb 9:27-28 was written post fall and would make no sense without the fall.

Whether a person died having fallen or nor is immaterial to any intended fall because it was intended that humans be made corruptible, not already-corrupted.

According to the Scripture in the account of creation. even if they were created corruptible and mortal, they would not have died as long as they had access to the Tree of Life. It even implies that that could have lived even after having been corrupted by eating of the forbidden fruit if they still had access to the Tree of Life. It was corruption---sin---that brought the penalty of death and being barred from the Tree of Life.

What God intended was for Jesus, who alone is the way to God, to be revealed in the last days of His redemptive plan, to live, die, resurrect, and ascend because that is the only way any human, sinner or not, was ever going to reach God and fulfill God's intent: a creature, a created vessel capable of housing God's own Spirit.

They were created already perfect and walking with God. God breathed his very life (spirit) into Adam. I agree that God through the person and work of Jesus is creating a new man who is immortal and incorruptible. But he is doing that by first the defeat of the power of sin and death for those united with Christ, and ultimately the total destruction of the source of evil and all who reject Christ. And he is creating a new creation that has no sin in it. Without sin in those who he redeems there would be no one to redeem and through whom to conquer sin.

Sin was not in any way a concern, nor an obstacle, to what was always intended.

Right. It is not an obstacle. It is the means.

To say otherwise would mean God was creating a contingency. He was making a caveat in case something He unexpected, or not wanted or intended, or simply something other than one, single, soilitary intent.

What God intends to occur always occurs. There would be no contingency involved if God intended Adam to fall for his larger purpose.

To suggest God wanted sin's occurrence and intended that is untenable because that would compromise any claim of righteousness and perfection.

Now you are conflating intended and wanted. They are not always the same thing. Decretive will and revealed will.

It would necessarily mean a righteous creator wanted unrighteousness, a law making creator wanted lawlessness, an ever-faithful creator wanted faithlessness, a creator wanted decay, corruption, desolation and destruction. It is self-contradictory. That creator might be a god, but not a God, and definitely not the God of the Bible.

Now you have entirely substituted 'intended" with "wanted".

To be continued. I have to shorten the post.

 

[Arial]

The Godhead had a pre-existing plan for all of creation. Adam disobeyed God and brought sin and transgressional death into the world. God shrugged His omni-attributed shoulders and said, "Meh. Got it already covered. It's not something I about which I need to be concerned." Humans, on the other hand, definitely need to be concerned.

What was Jesus going to die for if there was no sin? In the scenario above, there was a portion of the Covenant of Redemption that was contingent on the actions of men. Something that didn't exist within the Covenant of Redemption that God reacted to in time.

Doctrinally speaking,

1. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions. (WCF 3.1 and .2)

God intending Adam to fall (assuming one takes the position that is the answer to the OP question) in no way violates the above. It does not make God responsible for the actions of a being he created with the capacity to act on his own choices. In fact, one might propose his intent of a fall is why he created man with agency and put the lying serpent in the Garden with them. Still doesn't make him responsible for Adam's sin.

God ordained whatever happened.

Yes. Therefore, he ordained the fall.

God intended not to be the author of sin.

God can't be the author of sin.

God intended not to violate the volitional agency of His creatures.

And he didn't even if he did intend the fall.

God intended to establish the liberty or contingency of secondary causes.

Yes. See that serpent sidling up to Eve?

• His knowledge of all that did/may/can/will happen is not dependent upon His examining the future.

Right. Intending Adam to fall (if one claims that he did) would be known in and part of the Covenant of Redemption before creation.

Care must be taken not to create a condition wherein God is subjugated to circumstance, the Creator to His creation. It cannot be thought that God made a plan and then said, "Oh wait. Those humans might disobey Me, so I better add something to my plan to cover that contingency/possibility/probability/inevitability."

Well, I doubt anyone who understands the Covenant of Redemption thinks such a scenario would be a part of it. And what I have presented concerning the possibility that God intended the fall, does not present that scenario. It does not have God subjugated to circumstances but ordaining them and decreeing the means.

 

[Arial]

Yep. Assuming the fall is a matter of divine intent must first be justified, and the question itself does not establish that; it presuppositionally assumes it.

The question assumes nothing. It is a question brought up for discussion.

The question is not a question specific to this op. It is a question with a very long history in the debate over divine intent and, by extension, the nature of providence and divine attribute. The red herring did not begin with this op. It began when the first person asked whether or not God intended sin (the fall). The question's origin is not, therefore, solely attributable to the op (and neither, therefore, is my reply). Someone should have told the first person who raised that question long ago that the fall has nothing to do with divine intent. Logically speaking, the nature of sin is the opposite of divine intent (as my op-reply detailed but did not label as such). A Law Maker intending lawlessness is oxymoronic.

Now that is a red herring if I ever saw one.

Since the above post is a whole post to prove that the accusation that the OP was a red herring, and my response dealing with the red herring accusation, and your still insisting that the OP is a red herring, I will turn it over to the other staff to mediate that accusation and my response. We can continue to post on other issues.

 

[JesusFan]

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?

If God decrees that the Fall must happen, does that mean He caused and determined it to come to pass, or that He allowed it to happen as always had the Cross of Christ to deal with it happening?

 

[Arial]

If God decrees that the Fall must happen, does that mean He caused and determined it to come to pass, or that He allowed it to happen as always had the Cross of Christ to deal with it happening?

I think the answer to that question would be found in looking at the very end result. We see it as it applies to us and the created order in Is 11 and Rev 21:1-8.

What was the end result of the fall? He determined it to come to pass, and he was the first cause, but the means was the serpent who deceived and Adam who sinned. Choices of those with agency.

I think we are in some pretty deep waters here and I am no expert in navigating them. That is why my OP question and why I asked for input.

 

[JesusFan]

I think the answer to that question would be found in looking at the very end result. We see it as it applies to us and the created order in Is 11 and Rev 21:1-8.

What was the end result of the fall? He determined it to come to pass, and he was the first cause, but the means was the serpent who deceived and Adam who sinned. Choices of those with agency.

I think we are in some pretty deep waters here and I am no expert in navigating them. That is why my OP question and why I asked for input.

Would part of this be that the end result of the ternal state and with us as having been physically glorified superior state then remaining in the Garden of Paradise forever then?

 

[CrowCross]

Would part of this be that the end result of the ternal state and with us as having been physically glorified superior state then remaining in the Garden of Paradise forever then?

Why would Adams and Eves progeny have to remain in the garden if A&E didn't fall?

 

[Arial]

Would part of this be that the end result of the ternal state and with us as having been physically glorified superior state then remaining in the Garden of Paradise forever then?

It is a far superior state. There is no serpent and all of creation is new and free of death, and the lion lies down with the lamb.

 

[CrowCross]

Why would Adams and Eves progeny have to remain in the garden if A&E didn't fall?

Slightly off topic, but, Why would Adams and Eves progeny have to remain in the garden if A&E didn't fall?

To answer the question from the OP @Arial asked......there is always this "dilema" if that's what we want to call it, that is....

God is all knowing, that is God knew Adam and Eve would fall. Therefore God must have intended for A&E to fall. Right?
Well, who says? It sounds good. Perhaps it can be argued....

But, considering God is the only perfect being, incapable of sin He may have made man not intending for man to fall but knowing only God can't sin He knew man had to sin.

 

[Josheb]

Are you saying that the whole point of creation within the Covenant of Redemption was for all men to die once and face judgement? Heb 9:27-28 was written post fall and would make no sense without the fall.

That is mostly incorrect.

No, I am not saying the whole point of creation within the covenant of redemption was for all men to die once and face judgment. The whole point of creation within the covenant of redemption was to be fruitful, multiply, subdue the earth and rule over it. But, more specifically, the point of creation is not the covenant of redemption. The "Covenant of Redemption" is an extra-biblical construct. The CoR is a theological concept describing an agreement among the Father, Son, and Spirit to provide salvation for humanity. There is no need to provide salvation for humanity if humanity does not fall into sin. Therefore, the construct, or concept, is by definition a contingency. A contingency is a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty. The alternative is that God determinatively knew sin would occur as an inevitability and planned initiated the CoR based on that (fore)knowledge. That necessarily implies a flaw in the plan for, or point of, creation because (again) there is no need for the CoR if there is no fall. Either way makes God dependent. Either way makes God dependent on sin. Both dependencies are contrary to divine simplicity, aseity, self-sufficiency, and omni-attributes. Therefore, the CoR must be tied to something other than the fall into sin and the fall into sin must be viewed as an addition to the CoR, not its instrument.

This also adversely affects Christology because if ALL of Jesus' identity, purpose, and existence is limited to the role of salvation then, again, everything about him is dependent upon sin, whether possibility, probable, or inevitable. There's no need for a Savior if redemption is tied solely to sin and there is no sin.

Yes, Hebrews 9:27-28 was written after the fall (as was everything in the Bible) but, no, it was not written solely about post-fall conditions. Humans were created mortal, not immortal. That means they were always going to die unless some means of not-dying was provided subsequent to creation of humanity. In the garden of Eden that means was the tree of life. After Adam sinned and brought sin into the world, all access to the tree of life was prevented for a season. The tree of life by which all humans might live forever was revealed in the last times of the New Testament era. The tree of life existed prior to Genesis 3:6-7. It was supposed to be partaken of without A&E sinning. It provided life (redemptive life) apart from sin.

People die twice. The die in sin and they die physically. Jesus covers both circumstances, not just the former. Limiting the CoR to only the former is a mistake.

When Paul wrote, "But someone will say, 'How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?' You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else," he was writing that after the fall, but the words apply to the pre-disobedient creation. He followed that up with clarifying words, "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." When was humanity made perishable? At creation, not at Genesis 3:6. Had Paul been referring to the post-disobedient state he would have said the seed is sown perished, not perishable. Which body is natural verses spiritual? Was pre-disobedient Adam a natural or a spiritual being? According to verse 45, he was natural, not spiritual, in the pre-disobedient condition. When was humanity dishonorable? The common sense impulse is to answer, "When he fell into sin," but the larger truth is that as long as humanity was corruptible there was always some dishonor relevant to Christ (the perfect, blemish free bondservant of human appearance). The problem to be solved by the CoR is not solely the problem of post-sin corruption. The problem to be solved by the CoR is both the problem of corruptibility and the problem of corruptedness. Humans were sown perishable, not perished. Humans were "sown" mortal, not immortal. If eternal life was the goal, then they were always going to need a Savior - whether they ever sinned or not. Eternal life is found in only one person: Jesus Christ. From what are we saved? 1) death, 2) sin, and 3) wrath commensurate to sin. Humans were made mortal.... it was appointed to them to die once and then face judgment. The sinless human was till in need of the tree of life. Salvation from the created state of mortality is just as much by grace through faith as salvation from sin. No one can work their way out of the grave.

The CoR covers both circumstances: sinless death AND sinful death.

According to the Scripture in the account of creation. even if they were created corruptible and mortal, they would not have died as long as they had access to the Tree of Life.

I completely agree. Is the existence of Tree of Life (ToL) understood as part of the Covenant of Redemption, or not? Is the dependent need to eat from the ToL to avoid mortality viewed as part of the CoR, or not? If not..... then an explanation for how God is not, therefore, dependent upon the existence of sin for his covenant to have justification and how He Himself is not dependent upon the existence of sin for his covenant plane to work will have to be provided.

It even implies that that could have lived even after having been corrupted by eating of the forbidden fruit if they still had access to the Tree of Life.

Yep. That is certainly the implication (based on Gen 3:22) of the tree of life. A&E were mortal and would die at some point if they did not eat the fruit from the tree of life. There is an implication within this implication, though, because they'd have to believe, true, have faith that fruit would provide life. Whether pre-sin or post-sin, the partaking of the tree of life is still a function of grace through faith. Furthermore, living forever on earth in a world that still needs subduing and sovereign rule is much different than living on an earth described in Revelation 21-22. The former is not the goal.

It was corruption---sin---that brought the penalty of death and being barred from the Tree of Life.

Hmmmm.... not quite. Sin did bring a penalty of death, but that death is not the same death as a sinless mortality. Transgressional death (death due to transgression) or sinful death (death due to sin), is much different than physically dying without ever having sinned. It is very important to understand transgression and sin are not necessarily the same thing. There are ways to sin apart from transgressing the Law (this is why a hamartiology based solely on 1 Jn 3:4 is incomplete and thereby wrong). In point of fact, sinless death is sinful . Yep. How is sinless death sinful? The word "sin" means missing the target. What is the target?

Perfection.

As long as a person is corruptible, s/he is imperfect. It does not matter whether an actual transgression has ever been committed, the existence of the possibility is part of the problem to be solved. To word it an entirely different way, God made humans good and sinless, but he did not make them complete. The good and sinless individual still had to die once and be resurrected.

When people say eating the fruit from the tree of life would have provided a means of never having to physically die they are usually neglecting the premise that fruit might have killed Adam and then resurrected him . Jesus is the resurrection and the life! That means the tree of life is the resurrection. There is no other way to God but Jesus, the tree of life. There is no life apart from Jesus. There is no resurrection apart from Jesus and the only way to be resurrected is to first die . Jesus is the prototype. He lived a sinless life and then he died. He died knowing he'd resurrect because he is the tree of life.

So do not be so quick to reject or deny the Covenant of Redemption covers sinless conditions and definitely do not be so quick to limit the CoR only to sin.

They were created already perfect and walking with God. God breathed his very life (spirit) into Adam. I agree that God through the person and work of Jesus is creating a new man who is immortal and incorruptible. But he is doing that by first the defeat of the power of sin and death for those united with Christ, and ultimately the total destruction of the source of evil and all who reject Christ. And he is creating a new creation that has no sin in it. Without sin in those who he redeems there would be no one to redeem and through whom to conquer sin.

Sorta. The angel is in the details. God is not creating a new man first by defeating the power of sin and death. There are several acts or steps that occur way before Calvary. The first is the choice by Christ to lay aside all claims of equality. The incarnation is a first step in creating a new man and that does not require sin. The perfect life lived by Christ is a first step (and he lived that perfect life for multiple reasons, which we can detail and discuss if necessary). There is no uniting with Christ if the perfect life isn't revealed, nor if it is not lived. In addition, the post does not actually stated this, but the implication is that of an unstated "onlyism." For example, God is creating the new man [only] by the defeat of sin. If that is true, then (again) God is dependent upon sin for His covenant to exist and succeed. The Law Maker is dependent on lawlessness and the Ever-Faithful is dependent on faithlessness. This ends up compromising divine ontology in the arena of aseity.

The doctrine of the CoR was developed to avoid that problem, not commit it.

Right. It is not an obstacle. It is the means.

That makes God and His plan, His covenant dependent on sin.

What God intends to occur always occurs. There would be no contingency involved if God intended Adam to fall for his larger purpose.

Define "intended." The word normally means planned, meant, purposed, or designed. There is a fundamental difference between "God planned sin," and "God planned for sin's occurrence." There is a huge difference between "God planned Adam to fall for His larger purpose," and "God planned for Adam's fall." There's even a larger difference between "God designed Adam to fall," and "Adam's fall fell within God's purpose for creation."

Therefore, clarification of, "God intended Adam to fall," is warranted because it cannot mean God authored sin, and it will have to be clarified in a manner that avoids the problem of dependence, the problem of a compromised aseity.

Now you are conflating intended and wanted. They are not always the same thing. Decretive will and revealed will. Now you have entirely substituted 'intended" with "wanted".

Read it again. That sentence is a hypothetical. I did not say God wanted sin to occur. I rhetorically argued the premise is untenable. More importantly...

​

Let's keep it civil and calm, listening and not just speaking, since I do disagree with you on some points.

Then please do not accuse anyone of conflation, especially where none has occurred. Keep the posts about the posts and not the poster and say something like, "That statement appears to conflate intent and want."

"Now you are conflating....." is not civil or calm. It's accusatory and provoking. Go back and re-read what was posted, understanding the "To say...." clause is simply indicative of an argument against a common viewpoint solely for the purpose of stimulating discussion. Nothing more.

To be continued. I have to shorten the post.

I see the multiple posts . I will take up the rest when we've reached some consensus on the premise the Covenant of Redemption is limited to and solely dependent upon the existence of sin - or not. I believe the CoR is not thusly limited (for the reasons already posted).

More importantly, because I have provided an explanation for how and why the CoR is NOT limited to the existence of sin my prior appraisal of the question as a red herring has been provided. Some consensus must be reached on this.



I will add this: Most books on the subject of Covenant Theology, and particularly on the Covenant of Redemption don't go into the sort of detail I have posted. Most never even consider the matter of dependency, much less provide commentary. Doctrinally speaking, the WCF has made it clear God did not author sin but its occurrence was ordained and ordained without violence to creation or the creature. It should be obvious and go without saying but God ordained all without doing violence to Himself, either. Limiting the CoR to the existence of sin does God violence.

 

[John Bauer]

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?

I would say yes, but with a caveat inspired by the word "intend." I think that word can obscure important theological distinctions. In ordinary speech, "intend" implies a single, univocal act of purpose, but Reformed theology recognizes a layered structure in God’s will:

• decretive, what God ordains to occur. In this sense, God decreed the fall—it was part of his eternal counsel and purpose flowing from the pactum salutis (covenant of redemption).
  
  ​
• preceptive, what God commands and approves in itself. In this sense, God did not will the fall, since sin violates his law and holiness.
  
  ​
• providential, the outworking of the decree through secondary causes. Here God permits and governs sin for his own ends, not as moral approval but as ordaining the event itself for redemptive purposes.

So, if one says "God intended the fall," it is technically true only if "intend" refers to the decretive will, not to his moral intention. Without that distinction, it risks suggesting that God desired evil as such, which would contradict his nature.

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."

 

[Arial]

I would say yes, but with a caveat inspired by the word "intend." I think that word can obscure important theological distinctions. In ordinary speech, "intend" implies a single, univocal act of purpose, but Reformed theology recognizes a layered structure in God’s will:

• decretive, what God ordains to occur. In this sense, God decreed the fall—it was part of his eternal counsel and purpose flowing from the pactum salutis (covenant of redemption).
  
  ​
• preceptive, what God commands and approves in itself. In this sense, God did not will the fall, since sin violates his law and holiness.
  
  ​
• providential, the outworking of the decree through secondary causes. Here God permits and governs sin for his own ends, not as moral approval but as ordaining the event itself for redemptive purposes.

So, if one says "God intended the fall," it is technically true only if "intend" refers to the decretive will, not to his moral intention. Without that distinction, it risks suggesting that God desired evil as such, which would contradict his nature.

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."

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.

Here, knowing the end and final result, I look at the serpent. His utter destruction is the final result where he is concerned. Until that time, Jesus has procured redemption of a people, having defeated Satan's power to condemn those Christ died for, on the cross. In the now, he gathers his people through the preaching of the gospel, and Satan is powerless to take any out of his hand who God has elected to give to the Son.

With his resurrection from the dead, Jesus has secured the future resurrection of all the dead in him at his return, and the changing of those who remain alive, all made immortal and incorruptible in him (1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4:13-18). And the creation that had been subjected to futility (Romans 8:18-22) will be renewed. All for the Son (Col 1:16-17 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

None of this could happen if Adam did not sin.

 

[Arial]

The whole point of creation within the covenant of redemption was to be fruitful, multiply, subdue the earth and rule over it. But, more specifically, the point of creation is not the covenant of redemption.

Here you appear to affirm a Covenant of Redemption which you later call a human construct. So do you mean "the whole point of creation was to be fruitful, multiply, subdue the earth, and rule over it"? That would be the command of God for humanity, but I do not see it as the ultimate purpose of creation. They had to be given a command by their Creator in order to obey or disobey it. To say the purpose was the above, would imply utter failure of his purpose the way I see it at the moment.

The "Covenant of Redemption" is an extra-biblical construct. The CoR is a theological concept describing an agreement among the Father, Son, and Spirit to provide salvation for humanity.

In what way are you using "extra-biblical construct"? By the following statement:

The CoR is a theological concept describing an agreement among the Father, Son, and Spirit to provide salvation for humanity. There is no need to provide salvation for humanity if humanity does not fall into sin. Therefore, the construct, or concept, is by definition a contingency.

it appears that you are using it with the nuance of speculative theological overreach that is unsupported by Scripture. It is supported by Scripture and one place we see it clearly is John 17. We also see it in the verses that speak of before the foundation of the world in relation to Jesus and also the elect. You do not however, deal with what is "extra-biblical" about it, but relate it as not legitimate according to your view oft he purpose of creation being to "be fruitful and multiply---". You dismiss it as not necessary if man does not fall into sin. But the basis of the "construct" is first, biblical, and second is consistent with God's stated purpose for Christ. To redeem a people. The contingency as I would see it is in Jesus coming because God's purpose in creation failed. Adam sinned. As though that were a learned event, a fly in the ointment, of God's omniscience, his aseity.

The alternative is that God determinatively knew sin would occur as an inevitability and planned initiated the CoR based on that (fore)knowledge. That necessarily implies a flaw in the plan for, or point of, creation because (again) there is no need for the CoR if there is no fall.

The ordained fall itself was serving a purpose. Everything in that Garden of Eden was working towards that purpose. There were the two trees, one life giving, one life destroying. A command was given to not eat of the life destroying tree that would give them the knowledge of evil as well as good. And who else was in the Garden. The lying, deceiving, evil serpent. If God's purpose in creation was to "be fruitful and multiply---" why would he put that forbidden tree, give the command, and also put the Deceiver in his perfect creation? So one can only see the CoR as being flawed if one believes that the purpose of creations is as you say. That it is as you say is what would need to be supported or proven true.

Now, one can come back with the response prove that the CoR is the purpose of creation. But my premise in the OP presumes it, and it is also presumed, and well theologically, exegetically, biblically, supported by Reformed theology. And I have shown where it is found in Scripture. So there is really no point in either your proving your view or me proving mine.

The CoR as the purpose of creation is the only way there are no contingencies attached to anything that happened in the Garden. The purpose of creation, I believe is the ultimate destruction of that serpent through the redemption of those born in Adam who his (the serpent's) wiles brought down and yanked away from God.

 

[CrowCross]

The purpose of creation, I believe is the ultimate destruction of that serpent through the redemption of those born in Adam who his (the serpent's) wiles brought down and yanked away from God.

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

Am I wrong? Perhaps I misread you.

 

[Arial]

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

Am I wrong? Perhaps I misread you.

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

 

[Arial]

The alternative is that God determinatively knew sin would occur as an inevitability and planned initiated the CoR based on that (fore)knowledge

The plan is what plays out on earth in time. The Covenant is the purpose of the plan. Nothing can be redeemed unless it first needs to be redeemed. And the entire Bible is one story of Redemption. The covenant was entered into within the Godhead because mankind was going to fall and that because he was ordained to fall, into inescapable sin and need the Creator Christ to redeem him. The culprit in this story is Satan. The hero is Christ. Christ, in his incarnation is the victor by substituting his perfectly righteous humanity for the sinner's corrupted humanity, to satisfy God's justice against those who are sinners. If there were no sinful humans, there would be no one for him to substitute for. No need of the cross, no need of his incarnation, or his death, or his resurrection. And if none of that happens, who is it that still roams around looking for someone to devour?

The Covenant of Redemption does not make God responsible for sin. It does not make God the author of sin. The fact that he ordained Adam to fall and decreed the means of that fall, does not make him the author of sin. It is enough here, to say that he is not the author of sin because according to his aseity he would have to possess sin within himself in order to author it. The CoR does no damage to that. Sin already existed at creation of our world and the prime sinner crawled on his belly like a snake. It wasn't foreknowledge that made a CoR necessary. It was purpose.