An examination of the claim that God decreed Adam's fall

[Iosias]

Francis who?

You know, Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. the Director of the National Institutes of Health and who served as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute from 1993-2008. Who was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in November 2007, and received the National Medal of Science in 2009. He is also a Christian and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

I would agree the Creation account is an historical narrative, rather than Hebrew poetry.

Which creation account; the Priestly creation account is best described as 'elevated prose' as Gordon Wenham suggests. The Yahwistic account is prose, but this says nothing about it being 'historical narrative'. Peter Enns has some great analysis here.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Oh, look, the documentary hypothesis. People still believe that?

ASA - October 2002: higher criticism

 

[Epiphoskei]

If it is a salvific term, why weren't all saved? Are you suggesting Ishmael and all of his offspring were damned? Ishmael was blessed.

All who are reckoned Abraham's offspring by the promise are saved.

No, 'prepared for destruction' is not clear-cut damnation. Damnation comes to those that willfully reject God.

Your interpretation of these scriptures throws up the awful prospect of God unconditionally damning and you have said that God foreordains everything.

So, in other words, because !Predestination, !Interpretation supporting predestination. That's eisegesis.

What of these scriptures?

Does it really need to be stated out loud that being the people of God, being the remnant who are saved, means to be the saints? They're talking about salvation.

 

[Clare73]

Same old same old. . ."Hath God said?"

No, deal with the argument. I am laying out an argument using evidence assessing the composition of Gen. 2-3.

Do you agree that there is a great deal of similarity in the way that the story of Israel is presented in the Deuteronomistic History and how the story of Adam is presented in Gen. 2-3?

Nope. . .those supposed "similarities" show an ignorance of Scripture.

Israel's history as a nation can be broken down as follows:

1. Israel is “created” by God at the exodus through a cosmic battle (gods are defeated and the Red Sea is “divided”

Israel was "created" without cosmic battle at Ge 32, 42-43, not at the Exodus.

2. The Israelites are given Canaan to inhabit, a lush land flowing with milk and honey;

The Israelites had to take Canaan in bloody battle in order to inhabit it.

3. They remain in the land as long as they obey the Mosaic law;

They were not expelled from the land upon their disobedience, nor after their first warning regarding their disobedience.

4. They persist in a pattern of disobedience and are exiled to Babylon.

Israel was in violation of the covenant for at least 300 years before being exiled to Babylon.

Israel’s history parallels Adam’s drama in Genesis:

1. Adam is created in Genesis 2 after the taming of chaos in Genesis 1;

Adam did not exist prior to God's forming him from dust in Ge 2, whereas
Israel existed over 400 years before the Exodus.

2. Adam is placed in a lush garden;

Adam did not have to take the garden in bloody battle, as Israel had to take Canaan.

3. Law (not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) is
given as a stipulation for remaining in the garden;

"Thou shalt not eat of it" was not stated as a stipulation for remaining in the garden,
but as a stipulation for retaining eternal life.

Exile from the garden was the result of his loss of eternal life, verified in his loss of physical life.

4. Adam and Eve disobey and are exiled.

Adam is exiled immediately upon disobedience, not 300 years later, as was Israel.

Your source is ignorant of the Scriptures and handles them very loosely.

Nor do you know Scripture well enough to evaluate what he says.

I suggest you get in a good Bible study and learn the Word of God.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

How does the word 'foreordination' remain unblunted in its meaning if there is a consideration of the deeds of men in what is decreed? If you edge towards the idea of foreknowing then you are approaching the Arminian position. In effect, foreordaining becomes post-ordaining.

As you already know Calvinists believe God is omniscient, which includes God foreknowing, which means we hold to foreknowledge. The difference is, we disagree as to foreknowledge being the grounds or basis of for election. I am no student of Greek, but I think "foreknow" can also mean "foreloved" in Greek. Of course the deeds of men are foreknown, and in the context of what you responded to, those deeds referred to, are the deeds of the unregenerate, which is not in the context of arminian foreseen faith involving salvation, the context is the responsibility of sinners for their sin! Why do you persist in responding with out of context comments?

John Calvin makes no reference here to a consideration of the man himself. God compacted with Himself, says Mr. Calvin.

Here again, you quote John Calvin out of context. I am almost certain I have quoted John Calvin from his "Bondage and Liberation of the will" which clearly shows the unofficial compatibilist position he held, wherein man is responsible. As to the elect, God made no consideration of the man himself, salvation is by grace though faith that nobody can boast.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

It is astonishing that Luther held such views.

So, as an example (correct me if I am wrong), God foreordained Mr. A to eternal life, but Mr. B to eternal damnation. God did so without any consideration of Mr. A and Mr. B, that is, without consideration of how they would behave as people (good or bad). Mr. A was a ruthless, greedy man and drank to excess, but because God had foreordained that he would receive eternal life, God effected a complete turn around in his life. Mr. B was greedy and drank too (though he did do a lot of work for the poor) and because God had foreordained damnation, he remained a non-Christian.

It's not astonishing if you read his "Bondage of the Will". Luther's position may be even a little "stronger" than my own. Some hold to a single Predestination, others double, and some have made distinctions in the will of God, such as prescriptive, permissive, active, etc., whereby what God wills may come to pass via secondary causes permissvely so far as activity contrary to the nature of God is concerned. In short, some people hold double predestination as active/active concerning the activity of God, others active/passive (permissive). Personally, I think His prescriptive will, suggests a permissive will (to do otherwise).

Though I don't agree with Roman Catholicism, I find Calvinism THE greatest threat to the Gospel.

Then unfortunately, I'd have to say you're also an enemy of Protestantism. Why? Because Arminianism would have never had the freedom of followers without the Reformation. If not for those before the Arminians, no Arminius, no Wesley, do you understand?

It remains shocking that the author of Pilgrims Progress should write such this.

Nothing shocking about it, the puritan John Bunyan was a devout Calvinist.

Not true. Romans 9 has God electing those whom He will work through. The electing is not unto salvation.

Prove it with Scripture janx, give me a quote from Roman 9. If election isn't to salvation, pray tell what is it unto?

 

[janxharris]

As you already know Calvinists believe God is omniscient, which includes God foreknowing, which means we hold to foreknowledge. The difference is, we disagree as to foreknowledge being the grounds or basis of for election. I am no student of Greek, but I think "foreknow" can also mean "foreloved" in Greek. Of course the deeds of men are foreknown, and in the context of what you responded to, those deeds referred to, are the deeds of the unregenerate, which is not in the context of arminian foreseen faith involving salvation, the context is the responsibility of sinners for their sin! Why do you persist in responding with out of context comments?

If God has foreordained every event what is left to foreknow?

 

[Epiphoskei]

Why do you ask "what is left to foreknow?" as if the pot of things which are foreknowable shrinks every time something is assigned to foreordination? These are not mutually exclusive principles.

 

[janxharris]

It's not astonishing if you read his "Bondage of the Will". Luther's position may be even a little "stronger" than my own. Some hold to a single Predestination, others double, and some have made distinctions in the will of God, such as prescriptive, permissive, active, etc., whereby what God wills may come to pass via secondary causes permissvely so far as activity contrary to the nature of God is concerned. In short, some people hold double predestination as active/active concerning the activity of God, others active/passive (permissive). Personally, I think His prescriptive will, suggests a permissive will (to do otherwise).

I thought you would have corrected my Mr. A and B story. You didn't.

I am baffled by your answer.

Then unfortunately, I'd have to say you're also an enemy of Protestantism. Why? Because Arminianism would have never had the freedom of followers without the Reformation. If not for those before the Arminians, no Arminius, no Wesley, do you understand?

I think the Reformation was necessary to correct the errors of RC.

Prove it with Scripture janx, give me a quote from Roman 9. If election isn't to salvation, pray tell what is it unto?

Romans 9 talks about God choosing whom He will work through. The word 'salvation' is not in the chapter, so it must be you that has to prove your assertion. I am merely stating what is plainly in the text.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Romans 9 talks about God choosing whom He will work through. The word 'salvation' is not in the chapter, so it must be you that has to prove your assertion.

Things Romans 9 says about the elect:

They are Abraham's Children (7)
They receive God's mercy (23)
They are God's Children (24)
They will be saved (27) (It's pretty pedantic to say the word "salvation" isn't in this chapter)
They obtained righteousness (30)

 

[janxharris]

Things Romans 9 says about the elect:

They are Abraham's Children (7)
They receive God's mercy (23)
They are God's Children (24)
They will be saved (27) (It's pretty pedantic to say the word "salvation" isn't in this chapter)
They obtained righteousness (30)

I admit I was wrong about 'salvation' not being in the chapter. Apologies.
I still maintain that salvation is not in view.

In his summing Paul reiterates what he has been saying - that, because the Jews had pursued righteousness through the law they had failed whilst the Gentiles succeeded because they did so through faith. So Paul is concluding that His chosen people have now lost favour with God (not permanently Romans 11:25) and He is now working through the Gentiles.

All that precedes this conclusion are details about God's choosing.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I don't see how you can maintain that salvation is not in view in a passage talking about people being children of God, recipients of mercy, and obtainers of righteousness. If these aren't soteriological terms, what are?

 

[janxharris]

Why do you ask "what is left to foreknow?" as if the pot of things which are foreknowable shrinks every time something is assigned to foreordination? These are not mutually exclusive principles.

If every aspect of a man's life is foreordained (without exception) then any foreknowing is redundant. Foreknowing assumes a limited foreordination.

This is what I think, anyway.

How does God foreknowing make any sense if He has already foreordained it?

 

[Epiphoskei]

Foreordination is an ontological concept and foreknowledge is an epistemological concept. I wouldn't say the former renders the latter redundant, as they foundationally operate differently. It doesn't follow that foreknowledge assumes limited foreordination, since foreknowledge is necessarily true independently of what one's take on foreordination is.

Omniscience, being an attribute of God, who is self-fulfilled and needs nothing, is a meaningful attribute for God independently of the nature of the things known. Omniscience is not redundant nor does it fail to make sense unless there are things which are not foreordained, because omniscience is not judged sufficient or deficient on the basis of things external to God of any sort.

 

[Iosias]

Nope. . .those supposed "similarities" show an ignorance of Scripture.

None of what you said contradicts the substance of my position, are you familiar with intertextuality?

The Adam story: Adam is placed in a Garden with God's rules where obedience brings blessing and disobedience brings curse; Adam disobeys and as a result is exiled to the east of the Garden.

The Israel story: Israel is placed in a place with God's rules where obedience brings blessing and disobedience brings curse; Israel disobeys and as a result is exiled to the east of the land.

It doesn't take a genius to see the inter-textual allusions between them.

Your source is ignorant of the Scriptures and handles them very loosely.

So along with Dr Enns, you're saying that Dr. Bryan Estelle, Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Seminary California, and minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, a leading Reformed theologian is ignorant of the Scriptures? Pull the other one please!!

Graeme Goldsworthy, Formerly lecturer in Old Testament and Biblical Theology at Moore Theological College, Sydney, notes that

Theologically, Adam in Eden corresponds with Israel in the promised land.

This is laid out in 'The Kingdom of God and the Old Testament'

I suggest you get in a good Bible study and learn the Word of God.

What would you suggest?

 

[Iosias]

Oh, look, the documentary hypothesis. People still believe that?

It is the starting point for all serious scholarship; though the majority will seek to tweak it here and there.

The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction by David M. Carr.

The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis by Joel S Baden.

The Old Testament: A Literary History by Konrad Schmid

Handbook of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Literature, Religion and History of the Old Testament

 

[Iosias]

I don't see how you can maintain that salvation is not in view in a passage talking about people being children of God, recipients of mercy, and obtainers of righteousness. If these aren't soteriological terms, what are?

Precisely, the section Rom. 9-11 concerns the salvation of Israel.

 

[Clare73]

Same old same old. . ."Hath God said?"

No, deal with the argument. I am laying out an argument using evidence assessing the composition of Gen. 2-3.

Do you agree that there is a great deal of similarity in the way that the story of Israel is presented in the Deuteronomistic History and how the story of Adam is presented in Gen. 2-3?

Nope. . .those supposed "similarities" show an ignorance of Scripture.

Israel's history as a nation can be broken down as follows:

1. Israel is “created” by God at the exodus through a cosmic battle (gods are defeated and the Red Sea is “divided”

Israel was "created" without cosmic battle at Ge 32, 42-43, not at the Exodus.

2. The Israelites are given Canaan to inhabit, a lush land flowing with milk and honey;

The Israelites had to take Canaan in bloody battle in order to inhabit it.

3. They remain in the land as long as they obey the Mosaic law;

They were not expelled from the land upon their disobedience, nor after their first warning regarding their disobedience.

4. They persist in a pattern of disobedience and are exiled to Babylon.

Israel was in violation of the covenant for at least 300 years before being exiled to Babylon.

Israel’s history parallels Adam’s drama in Genesis:

1. Adam is created in Genesis 2 after the taming of chaos in Genesis 1;

Adam did not exist prior to God's forming him from dust in Ge 2, whereas
Israel existed over 400 years before the Exodus.

2. Adam is placed in a lush garden;

Adam did not have to take the garden in bloody battle, as Israel had to take Canaan.

3. Law (not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) is
given as a stipulation for remaining in the garden;

"Thou shalt not eat of it" was not stated as a stipulation for remaining in the garden,
but as a stipulation for retaining eternal life.

Exile from the garden was the result of his loss of eternal life, verified in his loss of physical life.

4. Adam and Eve disobey and are exiled.

Adam is exiled immediately upon disobedience, not 300 years later, as was Israel.

None of what you said contradicts the substance of my position,

It contradicts any supposed Biblical warrant for your unwarranted assumption.

are you familiar with intertextuality?

The Adam story: Adam is placed in a Garden with God's rules where obedience brings blessing and disobedience brings curse; Adam disobeys and as a result is exiled to the east of the Garden.

The Israel story: Israel is placed in a place with God's rules where obedience brings blessing and disobedience brings curse; Israel disobeys and as a result is exiled to the east of the land.

It doesn't take a genius to see the inter-textual allusions between them.

I can make anything allude to anything if I am allowed to pick and choose only certain elements while ignoring the others which are contrary to it.

What would you suggest?

I'm saying your "connection" is an assumption with no Biblical warrant,
and I suggest you make your argument from what is Biblically warranted rather than from assumptions.

 

[Iosias]

That is poor hermeneutics.

Oh dear, it's actually fairly straight forward literary analysis. It is taught by Graeme Goldsworthy who taught hermeneutics at Moore Theological College and who has authored According to Plan, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, and Christ-Centered Biblical Theology.

So forgive me if I take lessons on hermeneutics from someone who was formerly lecturer in Old Testament, Biblical Theology and hermeneutics rather than yourself.

 

[Clare73]

That is poor hermeneutics.

Oh dear, it's actually fairly straight forward literary analysis.

"Literary" analysis of Scripture must be more than just "straight forward,"
it must be in the context of the whole counsel of God.
Your " straignt-forward literary" analysis fails in the context of all the Scriptures.

It doesn't take a genius to see the inter-textual allusions between them.

I can make anything allude to anything if I am allowed to pick and choose only certain elements while ignoring the others which are contrary to it.

What would you suggest?

Your "allusion" is an assumption with no Biblical warrant,
so I would suggest you make your argument from what is Biblically warranted rather than from assumptions.