The Fall of Adam and Eve

[AJB4]

Do Calvinists believe that God predestined the fall, and that God had meant to have Adam and Eve take of the "fruit"?

 

[mlqurgw]

I can only speak for myself. I do not represent all or any Calvinists.

There are two things that you must consider to get to the answer: If Adam's fall happened apart from the knowledge of God then God doesn't really know everything; and if He did know and didn't prevent it, which of course He could have easily done, He must have determined before to use it for His glory.

When God gave the prohibition to Adam against eating the fruit He didn't say if you eat of it but when you do. So yes I do believe that Adam's fall was forordained by God. If it weren't then we would have no knowledge of the mercy of God, Christ would have no purpose in the Godhead and salvation would be an afterthought of God when He was taken by surprise.

 

[bradfordl]

Do Calvinists believe that God predestined the fall, and that God had meant to have Adam and Eve take of the "fruit"?

This one does. Now I'll ask a question. Why did God place the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden?

 

[heymikey80]

Do Calvinists believe that God predestined the fall, and that God had meant to have Adam and Eve take of the "fruit"?

Can I back up a bit? Answering this in a vacuum is like answering "Can you have sex with zebras?" No one will remember the response; they'll just remember the question. (Just watch: 6 months from now you'll remember that question!)

There's a problem with the question. So I have to first say "No" before I actually say "Yes." No, God couldn't mean the Fall of Man the same way humans meant to perform sin. Can you even conceive a God doing things He commanded against? Um ... no. So God couldn't "mean" the Fall without "meaning" something completely different from, "Wouldn't it be so great, them eating of the Tree of KoGaE?"

It's not the event of sin on which God decides to cause sin -- it's the intent He has for sin.

But what's that intent?

Well, if you look at history, I think you can see that intent (I'm drawing directly from one of my mentors, Joe Novenson on this). You see God depart from walking with Adam in the garden, in Noah, He's a Voice; in Abraham, He's a Visitor-kinsman, in Moses, He's a glowing Tornado. He gets closer, and closer, and closer, back toward us. And then in Christ, He's become present with us again, physically walking God-with-us again. His Presence is there as close as Eden -- even though we're sinful creatures, He's physically there, God Incarnate.

But then -- something more. He's back with us as in the Garden, all is restored -- is it all completed? No. The God of the Universe gets closer -- after we've told Him, "In your face!" He does the one thing that will bring us even closer. He sacrifices His glory and His physical Presence among us, so that we can be even closer. It's not God-with-us now -- It's Christ-in-you, the Hope of Glory.

But you can't say that sin in the Garden accomplished this "even closer". Of course it didn't! God's redemption didn't happen through sin causing it. But sin triggered it. Sin brought God's redemption, and that redemption glorified us even higher than we would've deserved. Sin showed what the redemptive God does to accomplish His purposes -- to get closer to the one who's defied Him than the 99 who've never sinned.

So, you asked, "Did God mean us to sin?" We think further. We think what God meant to do for us. We think about God's intent to redeem us to be even closer to Him, beyond what we ever deserved. With that we say, "Oh yeah! He sure did mean it all!" But if I just say that without God's meaning, it's half the truth. And a half truth isn't any truth at all.

 

[TigerBunny]

This one does. Now I'll ask a question. Why did God place the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden?

Proverbs 17:3​

​

​

The refining pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold; But Jehovah trieth the hearts. ​

 

[heymikey80]

Do Calvinists believe that God predestined the fall, and that God had meant to have Adam and Eve take of the "fruit"?

Another take on this.

You've probably seen some. If you sit down and read through the script though you'll find the writer has different characters positioned in different places. Yet the play always comes out a certain way that the writer wanted.

That's very much the way I see God intending things to happen. He's the Author. Nothing happened that He didn't write down. And the play will end up the way He intended it. It will also "run through" the way He intended it.

But if everyone was united in the direction of the end of the play -- well, I'd wonder about anyone who wrote a story ... with no story!

I think it teaches us something cool about God, too. God invented "story". Whatever He's doing, it's a sure thing He's making a big deal about making this journey through history.

 

[Rick Otto]

God's modus operandi is by definition "good", but will only be experienced as such , and none can do that, or even desire to, without divine intervention.
When God creates evil(Isaiah45:7), it doesn't matter how you redefine or dilute the word "evil", it is bad junk however you pronounce it, but He does so out of holy motivation. But when we sin, even according to His plan, we do so out of wicked hearts, as Peter pointed out here:
Ac 2:23 - Show Context Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

 

[wnwall]

Do Calvinists believe that God predestined the fall, and that God had meant to have Adam and Eve take of the "fruit"?

Yes, here's some Scripture to back it up.

and all who dwell on earth will worship it [the beast], everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

(Revelation 13:8, emphasis added)

This text says God has a list of people who will be saved by Christ's blood. The relevant thing to notice here is when the text says the book was written. It says "before the foundation of the world". Which book? "The book of life of the Lamb who was slain." So before creation, God had already planned to send a Lamb to be slain for the sins of the people on his list. If he had already planned to slay the Lamb before creation, he had already planned that man would sin.

This verse says it was part of God's plan before the foundation of the world that Adam would fall and Jesus would bear God's wrath against the sins of the people whose names are in the book of the life of the Lamb who was slain.

P.S. You may want to keep an eye on the DesiringGod.org blog. Piper's planned a 7 part series on "Spectacular Sins and their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ," and the next 2 messages on the list are "The Fall of Satan and the Victory of Christ" and "The Fatal Disobedience of Adam and the Triumphant Obedience of Christ". They both should be quite good sermons, and I expect Piper to delve into the problem of evil. There's a clip of a Piper sermon on the problem of evil you may find interesting at http://youtube.com/watch?v=m0jwRkPW1D4 .

 

[orthedoxy]

Do Calvinists believe God can cerate a being that is completely free and can make his own Choices?
Would God loose his sovereignty as soon as he does?

 

[heymikey80]

Do Calvinists believe God can cerate a being that is completely free and can make his own Choices?
Would God loose his sovereignty as soon as he does?

Can such a being ever be good as long as he makes his own choices and not the good?

 

[Epiphoskei]

Do Calvinists believe God can cerate a being that is completely free and can make his own Choices?
Would God loose his sovereignty as soon as he does?

In my experience, Reformed Theologians refrain from using the word "free," since it tends to be either ambiguous or loaded.

 

[orthedoxy]

Can God be sovereign when he can't cerate totally free human being?

 

[orthedoxy]

***

 

[Epiphoskei]

Can God be sovereign when he can't creat totaly free human being?

Two problems: first, the word "free" is still ambiguous and second, that question ends up being just another rehashing of the so called omnipotence paradox: Can God be omnipotent unless he can do somthing which compromises his omnipotence. It's an inherently conflicting sentance.

 

[orthedoxy]

Two problems: first, the word "free" is still ambiguous and second, that question ends up being just another rehashing of the so called omnipotence paradox: Can God be omnipotent unless he can do somthing which compromises his omnipotence. It's an inherently conflicting sentance.

Free meaning Adam was totally free to eat the apple and was not created to eat the apple?
Would this contradict God's nature?

 

[wnwall]

Free meaning Adam was totally free to eat the apple and was not created to eat the apple?
Would this contradict God's nature?

I'm not trying to be picky for the sake of being picky, but you're still not really defining free. Until we have a clear definition of "free" you cannot have a yes or no on this question. However, I will attempt to circumvent all that by rewording the question in its proper light. If what you are asking is Can God limit his sovereignty without contradicting his nature? the answer is no. God cannot create a situation in which he is not sovereign. If he was not sovereign he would not be God. As Epiphoskei pointed out, that would be like asking "Can God create something so heavy he can't pick it up?" No, of course not. That doesn't mean God isn't omnipotent; the question itself is illogical.

 

[Rick Otto]

Free meaning Adam was totally free to eat the apple and was not created to eat the apple?
Would this contradict God's nature?

That would contradict his omniscience in His act of creation.

 

[orthedoxy]

I'm not trying to be picky for the sake of being picky, but you're still not really defining free. Until we have a clear definition of "free" you cannot have a yes or no on this question. However, I will attempt to circumvent all that by rewording the question in its proper light. If what you are asking is Can God limit his sovereignty without contradicting his nature? the answer is no. God cannot create a situation in which he is not sovereign. If he was not sovereign he would not be God. As Epiphoskei pointed out, that would be like asking "Can God create something so heavy he can't pick it up?" No, of course not. That doesn't mean God isn't omnipotent; the question itself is illogical.

People don't have to be like puppets for God to be sovereign. I have defined free by giving the example of Adam. God is sovereign even though he created free being. Why can God not be able to do something and still be all powerful and not be sovereign by not controlling us like puppets?

 

[orthedoxy]

That would contradict his omniscience in His act of creation.

How so?

 

[wnwall]

People don't have to be like puppets for God to be sovereign.

I said, "For God to be sovereign, he must be sovereign," or to put it another way "For God to be in control, he must be in control." I did not say, "For God to be sovereign we have to be puppets."

Here's what RC Sproul has to say about the puppet caricature, and it is worth reading because he deals with the caricature very well,

It may sound as if we are treating human beings like puppets. Puppets are made of wood. They can make no response. They are inert, lifeless. They are moved about by strings. But we are not talking about puppets. We are talking about humans who are spiritual corpses. These humans do not have hearts made of sawdust; they are made of stone. They are not manipulated by strings. They are biologically alive. They act. They make decisions, but never decisions for God.

When God regenerates a human soul, when he makes us spiritually alive, we make choices. We believe. We have faith. We cling to Christ. God does not believe for us. Faith is not monergistic (Chosen By God, 118).

I recommend Sproul's book, Chosen By God (you can read it online). It is short, easy to read, and rewarding.

I have defined free by giving the example of Adam. God is sovereign even though he created free being. Why can God not be able to do something and still be all powerful and not be sovereign by not controlling us like puppets?

You really haven't defined free will yet.

And here's the problem with that term: it really doesn't mean anything. Just looking at the words themselves "free will" seems like it should mean our wills are free from outside influences. But no one believes our wills are free from outside influences; just look at the marketing industry! Or the words "free will" could mean that we are free to do what we want to do. But no one believes that either; I can't walk through walls simply because I want to walk through walls! Only God is free to do as he pleases.

So when you say "free will" what do you mean? It's obvious we aren't free from outside influences or free to do as we please, so in what way are our wills free?

If by "free will" you mean we have the ability to make choices based on our wills, then of course, no Calvinist would argue with you there. But the question then becomes not "Why do we do what we do?" but "Why do we will what we will?" Because what we want to do most is what we do. No one ever acts against his will, but neither can a person control his will. Man is responsible for his choices, but man is not sovereign, God is.