Did God predestine the Fall?

[Apologetic_Warrior]

He ordained it.

Yes I think this is the correct word, or a decree. Sometimes the word foreordain is used, which is to appoint or decree.

 

[redleghunter]

If I understand you correctly, God never has had any plan, but He merely reacts to what happens. Am I correct in thinking this?

Yes don’t know how to categorize this. Perhaps this is semi-Deistic?

 

[redleghunter]

Ca

Calvin's quotes that God is the author of evil:
...how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission... It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them... (John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, 10:11)

The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)

thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)

…it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God’s secret plan… God’s secret plan is the cause of hardening. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)

I did not quote Calvin and this is not about him. But the dodge is noted.

Why won’t you address the Scriptures I provided? They were in context and a direct Apostolic teaching.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

No that he is omniscient, but that it was his plan.

If it wasn't His plan from the start, would the atonement of Christ then be plan B? Nah, it's impossible for God to be omniscient and have a plan B, it is one continuous plan of redemption originating before the foundation of the world.

 

[JohnB445]

He designed the World and Creation, knew the outcome, and let it go down.

They chose to sin, and God knew that they were going to do it before he created them.

 

[redleghunter]

Reacts to what happens is wrong.
Like I said, God is. God works through both the past, present and future since he is there.
Like some people say God in the Old Testament was different from the New Testament, that's not true rather he dealt with people in different time in different manner.

So God’s plan is to set things up and correct what goes wrong?

 

[redleghunter]

Luk_22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

[1] Sovereingty of God is seen. The devil has to ask permission from Jesus in order to tempt Peter. God does not make/ordain satan to tempt Peter, but simply allows it. God does not make/ordain Peter to fail or succeed. Both possibilites existed and the outcome was simply known ahead by Jesus. The devil chooses to do this temptation, and God allows it to take place for a reason.

[2] Peter has freedom of will (choice) to either choose Christ or satan. Peter's freedom of will is granted by God, even as God granted it to satan/lucifer.

[3] Jesus foreknew Peter would fail (they all would fail) and even told him (them) so, yet Jesus did not make Peter fail, make Peter choose to deny Christ, but rather allowed Peter the decision, between affirmation or denial of Christ Jesus. Jesus' foreknowledge does not negate the choice given to Peter, it simply reveals beforehand what that choice would be at the moment of choice. Peter did not have to deny Christ, but he did deny Christ in the moment of decision (which was foreknown what that decision of Peter would be, this foreknowledge doesn't take away the choice of Peter at all, it only reveals that choice made). Again, do not confuse foreknowledge with a false understanding of predestiny.

[4] That Jesus foreknew Peter's failure and recovery, does not mean that there was no decision or choice, or freedom of will. It only means that God knew in advance what Peter's thoughts and actions would be in response to the devil's temptation and the pleadings of the Holy Ghost for repentance. God gives choices to men, and even angels, but those decisions (outcomes from possibilities) which arise from the choices given are never forced by God, even when God foreknows the outcomes.

[5] Freedom of will granted by God, does not ever grant man/angel omniscience, or omnipotence.

Good post. Missing one important thing. This was part of God’s predetermined plan. Peter says so in Acts 2:23.

That verse contains both predetermined and Foreknowledge.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

He wanted it to happen, so He orchestrated it. He’s in control of everything.

For clarity sake, it is not His plan to always be directly in control of everything, both the WCF and LBCF acknowledge secondary agents of causality. I agree He wanted it to happen, had He not, He could have easily prevented, He could have done away with the evil one and his crew before creating mankind.

 

[mark kennedy]

Absolute foreknowledge negates free will, IMHO.

If you have free will, that means there's uncertainty. It could be this, or it could be that.

If what you will choose is known with 100% certainty prior to you choosing it, then there was no true choice in the matter.

Of course there is, even if God knew what your choice would be, God never makes anyone sin. The offense was inevitable without righteousness, that comes only from God since it's based on his nature.

 

[redleghunter]

it advocated in regards immortal soul/spirit theology which is central to Calvinism, and in the link you provided the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, I cited directly from, and refuted it.

That we have both an outer man and an inner man (soul/spirit) is central to Holy Scriptures.

But this is not the thread OP.

 

[liberty of conscience]

...But this is not the tread OP.

Do you always jump into other's conversation, even though it has nothing to do with you?

Less cheerleading, more response to what I already gave:

Did God predestine the Fall?

Did God predestine the Fall?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Absolute foreknowledge negates free will, IMHO.

If you have free will, that means there's uncertainty. It could be this, or it could be that.

If what you will choose is known with 100% certainty prior to you choosing it, then there was no true choice in the matter.

Not necessarily.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Simply put, because God gave us free will, God is responsible for making evil possible. However, we are responsible for making evil actual.

 

[Si_monfaith]

For those who believe in God predestine events, was the Fall one of them?

Does 1 peter 1: 18-20 say redemption was predestined. If so isn't fall predestined?

 

[DZoolander]

God is not bound by time so even saying that God foreknew means like God was present at a point in time

But free will is inextricably bound to time. If your path is set and knowable - then there is no choice.

 

[DZoolander]

Of course there is, even if God knew what your choice would be, God never makes anyone sin. The offense was inevitable without righteousness, that comes only from God since it's based on his nature.

I don't see how you can have it both ways. To say that I have free will is to say that I could go here, or I could go there. Both are possible.

If it is known with 100% certainty that I will go *there* - then by definition it's impossible for me to do otherwise. There's only the illusion of choice.

 

[Vicomte13]

"I am angry at you for doing what I foreordained you to do!" - God

 

[Hammster]

Salvation is not his plan B, he just worked with what people messed up.
Now answer my question.

I’ll stick to the topic.

So the cross is plan A. There a reason it was. It shows God in all of His glory. Every attribute of God is on display. Because of the cross we know things about God we never would have known had Adam not sinned. So sin, as horrible as it is, was necessary to show God’s glory in full.

I’d ask you if there was anything God could have done to keep Adam from sinning, without violating his “free will”, but you’d surely deflect. So, I’ll answer. There’s at least two things. One, He could not have made a law. Had He never gave the command, there would have been no law to violate. Two, He could have prevented Satan from tempting Eve.

These are not things that He was powerless to do. So since they happened, He wanted them to happen.

 

[DZoolander]

The concept of free will to me poses an interesting theological dilemma to Christianity and other faiths - because it illustrates conflicting goals.

On the one hand, they want to portray man as a flawed sinful creature undeserving of God's grace. Man could do X, or he could do Y. But he, to God's disappointment, chooses sinfully. Righteousness was an option, man just doesn't choose it and is therefore unworthy.

But if you're going to say that man could do X, or man could do Y, that means that the future is not set. If that choice is REAL, that means that every moment is the door to a new possible unknown future.

That poses problems with the other goal - which is how people want to define God. God cannot have any bounds. There is nothing that is beyond Him - and that includes all knowledge. With that definition, people can't bring themselves to say "God doesn't know X, Y or Z" - which of course includes the future and all of your actions.

It really can't be both, though. If free will is real, then the future is not set and God can be surprised by the outcome. If, however, the outcome is pre-set and known with certainty, then there is no choice anywhere in the continuum.

 

[Dave L]

Adam naturally wanted to sin upon hearing the Law or he would not have. But he did not sin until he acted on it. James says lust turns into sin when acted on.

Look at the Genesis account. God created Adam sinless. Because sin is the violation of a law. And Adam did not have the law at this time.

God then gave Adam a law. Adam wanted to break this law or he would not have.

But Adam did not actually sin until he broke the law. (that is, until he ate from the forbidden tree).

Sin happened when Adam broke God's Law. But the law also revealed that Adam wanted to sin or he would not have.