Adam and the Fall

[JesusFan]

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.

the fall and the Cross of Christ are intertwined with each other, as that messiah sacrifice was ordained before even the Fall had incurred in real time and history

 

[JesusFan]

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.

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

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

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?

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?

Why would God decree and ordain the very means to save lost sinners due to the fall yet to happen if that was not esdsential and part of Hod plan?

 

[JesusFan]

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?

He , Pharoah, wanted to do what he desired to do to the Jews, and God then hardened him to further His plan along

 

[Arial]

Why would God decree and ordain the very means to save lost sinners due to the fall yet to happen if that was not esdsential and part of Hod plan?

Exactly.

 

[makesends]

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.
.

It is not the logic of the syllogism that has convinced me that the fall was necessarily intended. However, it is a simple way to demonstrate that it is so. Granted, I do assume, for that syllogism, that ALL that exists is either caused to be, (by precedent cause), or is uncaused. It also assumes that God is the only uncaused [precedent cause]. To restate, it assumes as axiomatic that 'cause-and-effect' is absolutely pervasive, God being the only non-effect. And I have yet to hear any reason why not; so far all I get from you is "Ball's in your court, to prove it." It also assumes that God is consummately purposing in his acts/decrees/creating.

And, logically, from those assumptions, one concludes that there is no such thing as mere chance, no such thing as actual chaos (but only what WE humans consider chaos), and that God himself is the only truly spontaneous source, and, as the syllogism was intended to show, that all of God's decree includes ALL things subsequent from God.

I find your positioning here as rational as that of Atheists who claim that I must first prove that there is an uncaused causer, and/or that I need prove that there can be only one uncaused causer. If reason has no basis but words without assumptions, where is its starting point?

Or maybe you can show that God is enslaved to his nature and can do no other than to create and order and cause and had no interest in it other than to serve his nature. Can you show that God can do something unintentionally? But I don't think that is your purpose here. I just don't get what you are doing.

 

[Arial]

Can you show that God can do something unintentionally? But I don't think that is your purpose here. I just don't get what you are doing.

See post #98.

 

[Carbon]

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?

Oops. COR I meant.

 

[Carbon]

He , Pharoah, wanted to do what he desired to do to the Jews, and God then hardened him to further His plan along

Thanks for your reply, how do you believe God hardened him?

 

[JesusFan]

Thanks for your reply, how do you believe God hardened him?

Same way that He forced King David to do that Census report

 

[Carbon]

Same way that He forced King David to do that Census report

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...

 

[Josheb]

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.

Into what did Adam fall, if not sin? How does Adam fall, if not sin? It's also incorrect to say I moved the goalpost to "sin," when what I did was expand the "fall" to include its causal antecedents = disobedience and sin. There is no fall (which means what was experienced after Adam disobeyed God and sin entered the world)) apart from those two events. The op des not define "fall." I did. You are invited to define your terms as you intend them to be understood and discussed relevant to this op but the definition provided is correct and valid. It is also op-relevant. What I have also done is ask what the linked-to article says about three words, not just one.

Besides, isn't...

Just make your point Josh.

...a demand?

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.

Everyone will know because I'll eventually state my point and my requests were not "demands." I thought we were having a civil and calm discussion; a calm and civil discussion would not normally include demands, but it might include civil and calm requests to consider an article on the subject of the Covenant of Redemption written by one of the most noted Reformed/Covenantal theologians within Covenant Theology. It might also include the civil and calm, incremental gathering of information upon which consensus can be built.

I still haven't read a scripturally logical case for the necessity of specific intent relevant to the fall. We're not garnering any consensus on that matter.

I will, therefore, wait to see if a anyone else reads the articles and answers the questions asked (How many times does the article use the words "fall" "intent" which are the words specified in the opening posts, and "sin." I asked about "sin" because of comments like, "Without sin in those who he redeems there would be no one to redeem and through whom to conquer sin."

No goalposts were moved. A different approach is being taken, not a move of the goalposts.


Are you mad at me?
Is the conversation frustrating?
Y'all do observe the posts I am receiving have turned increasingly accusatory, yes? Less cooperative, yes?
If not either angry or frustrated, then what?
.

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

Yes, let's do that.


I'm going out again and probably won't be back until morning. I'll check back then to see if anyone has cooperated with my requests, invitations and suggestions (none of which are demands) and respond accordingly.

 

[Josheb]

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

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.

the fall and the Cross of Christ are intertwined with each other, as that messiah sacrifice was ordained before even the Fall had incurred in real time and history

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.

 

[Josheb]

Oops. COR I meant.

CoR = Covenant of Redemption.

 

[Arial]

Into what did Adam fall, if not sin? How does Adam fall, if not sin?

OMGosh. Is this on purpose, this sliding right by what I have said to present me as saying something I did not say. This not connecting something with the thing it is connected to? I am not arguing that Adam did not fall into sin. My statement of moving the goal post pertained to the fact that the original question asked was about Adam's fall. In the post I called "moving the goal post" by restating my position as God intended sin.

It's also incorrect to say I moved the goalpost to "sin," when what I did was expand the "fall" to include its causal antecedents = disobedience and sin

Expanding is the definition of moving. The "causal antecedents" = "disobedience and sin" is irrelevant. It is understood that Adam's disobedience was sin. That is what the fall refers to.

The op des not define "fall." I did.

Oh goody. I had no idea what the fall was when I posted the OP and neither did anyone else.

You are invited to define your terms as you intend them to be understood and discussed relevant to this op but the definition provided is correct and valid. It is also op-relevant. What I have also done is ask what the linked-to article says about three words, not just one.

No offense Josh, but you are all over the place. Is everything ok? Do we need to just put this discussion to rest?

Are you mad at me?
Is the conversation frustrating?
Y'all do observe the posts I am receiving have turned increasingly accusatory, yes? Less cooperative, yes?
If not either angry or frustrated, then what?
.

1.No. 2.The conversation isn't but the way it is being carried out to a brick wall is. 3. I would say that is a matter of your perception. 4. A great many of the posts I have received, and I see made to others carry the sharp marks of gaslighting.

Yes, let's do that.

I look forward to you beginning to do that instead of just accusing everyone else of not doing it. That isn't very civil.

 

[John Bauer]

That is incorrect.

No, it is not. I have now double-checked and sin is indeed mentioned a total of 17 times (though not by that word).

That makes it the correct answer.

 

[Hobie]

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?

God knew the future of what would happen, but that doesn't mean that was His intention as the Bible makes clear. He wants the best for each one of us and thus opens the door so that each one can choose eternal life, or perish in perdition.

 

[Arial]

I still haven't read a scripturally logical case for the necessity of specific intent relevant to the fall. We're not garnering any consensus on that matter.

I will, therefore, wait to see if a anyone else reads the articles and answers the questions asked (How many times does the article use the words "fall" "intent" which are the words specified in the opening posts, and "sin." I asked about "sin" because of comments like, "Without sin in those who he redeems there would be no one to redeem and through whom to conquer sin."

That blue link is from Post #5---a long time ago--and here is the rest of the content of that paragraph.

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.

And I said that in response to this:

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.

So, what you are discussing is not God's intent (ordain/decree) of the fall of Adam but the purpose of the Covenant. And then saying there was no necessity of the fall into sin. In a later post, 98 I beleive, you openly said that God ordained that Adam would fall

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.

And that is when you introduce the article to be read and certain words counted. as though that somehow would prove your above post.

So let me remind you. The OP is not about the purpose of the Covenant of Redemption. It is, in essence, did God ordain Adam's fall into sin and decree its means as a necessary inclusion in the CoR? IOW was it the only and perfect way to achieve the goal that we see in Rev 21 and Is 11. 1 Cor 15? Just a side note: No consensus can be reached on that question if one party claims that sin came into existence in Adam and the other party claims sin already existed before our world was created.

 

[Josheb]

No, it is not. I have now double-checked and sin is indeed mentioned a total of 17 times (though not by that word). That makes it the correct answer.

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

So, what you are discussing is not God's intent (ordain/decree) of the fall of Adam but the purpose of the Covenant

Incorrect. What I am doing is attempting to approach the matter of God's intent as it pertains specifically to Adam's fall from different ways because the first way I approached the matter was not well received. Most CT theologians say no, God did not intend that Adam would fall; he ordained the fall as part of his plan. They will say God did not cause the fall, and they will generally include information pertaining to Adam's volitional agency (mistakenly called "free will"). That Adam would fall (experience the effects of his disobedience and sin) was decretively ordained as a functional part of God's plan. The specific act of disobedience was permitted, and the consequences were simply the result of God's already ordained design specifications for creation (if you sin, then you die). Most CT theologians are what is now called compatibilists (God's will and human volition, or determinism and volitional agency are compatible) but they very in their respective degree of compatibilism.

There shouldn't be much, if any disagreement on that.

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.

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). At least one poster has suggested meticulous causation. 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. 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," 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.

Y'all do observe the posts I am receiving have turned increasingly accusatory, yes? Less cooperative, yes?

OMGosh. Is this on purpose? ...........I look forward to you beginning to do that instead of just accusing everyone else of not doing it. That isn't very civil.

Unwatching the thread and moving on.

 

[Arial]

Unwatching the thread and moving on.

Do as you please. But my post that you quoted was once again entirely misconstrued by putting two things together that were entirely separate. What is disconcerting and frustrating is that you do things like this and to respond requires the respondent to do what I am about to do. Just to set the record straight as to the misrepresentation. Here is what I said "Oh my gosh"
to: Post #131

Into what did Adam fall, if not sin? How does Adam fall, if not sin?

This is what I responded:

OMGosh. Is this on purpose, this sliding right by what I have said to present me as saying something I did not say. This not connecting something with the thing it is connected to? I am not arguing that Adam did not fall into sin. My statement of moving the goal post pertained to the fact that the original question asked was about Adam's fall. In the post I called "moving the goal post" by restating my position as God intended sin.

Which is exactly what you did. Restated my purpose and you applied. Your post #97 and my response to it post 117. You may take offense at my pointing that out, but that does not make what I said uncivil. If it was so offensive to you that you need to cut and run, so be it.

Here is what you connected the "OMGosh to in order to make it appear uncivil:

I look forward to you beginning to do that instead of just accusing everyone else of not doing it. That isn't very civil.

Which was a response to this: (which was from Post #3!!).

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

To which you replied:

Yes, let's do that.

It would seem you are unable to remain civil when others don't agree with you and point out the inconsistency of your premises(s) with Scripture. It is uncivil to instigate a whole series of responses completely off topic, by filling so much space with complaining about what others aren't doing that they should be doing and what they are doing that they shouldn't be doing, that have nothing to do with the OP topic.

 

[Arial]

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

It has been established from page 1, that my OP usage of "intend" referred to ordaining and decreeing and as part of the plan of the CoR. The fall is not the intent of the plan but integral to it. So, what is the point of posting ad nauseum as though it was being used in some other way? Why page after page of the same straw man? Why?!

The specific act of disobedience was permitted, and the consequences were simply the result of God's already ordained design specifications for creation (if you sin, then you die).

All well and good. Nowhere in this thread has it been positied any differently, not even by me. But Josh, the OP is about that one specific event, the fall into sin, that is part of the plan and whether it was intentional or accidental.

My battery is dying. Have to pick this up later