Theology Club: What if God needed Adam to fall early on?

Derf

Well-known member
I'm just trying to think this thing through. I'm inclined toward the open view of the future, but in some cases it tends to wrap back around toward something that looks Calvinistic. For example, Adam and Eve in the garden...

Here's my scenario. God decides to create a being that can reproduce that can have relationship with Him. To do so, man has to be able to reject Him, because a love that is forced is no love at all. Recognizing this, God knows that at least some men will succumb and will reject him. Probably a lot will. So He sets up a way to save the world He plans to make. Since rejecting the God (or disobeying Him--"if you love me, keep my commandments") who holds the universe together results in rejecting Him holding you together, death is the result.

To save a disobedient man from death, requires a death. I don't know why, but apparently that's the rule God applies to all. So assuming this universal rule, I can see how God would put in place a plan for His own son to die to save those who reject Him/His commands.

Here's the rub: it seems that the only way for God's Son's death to be effective is for His Son to become one of the race that sinned (again, I don't know why this rule is in play, but it seems to be so). If, then God's Son--His ONLY Son--needs to 1) be a part of the race of those He intends to save, and 2) needs to die once and never again, then He's limited in how many He can save UNLESS...
 

Derf

Well-known member
...UNLESS the first man sins BEFORE he has offspring.

So, what if God actually put man in the garden to fail (apologies to the other post along this line) and it was because He needed him to fail that the test was so easy, and that Satan was there to entice him?

The reason He needed him to fail is to make sure that there were no people that were not covered in His plan for salvation. Note that I didn't say "no people that were not saved", but all could have access to the salvation.

So in my scenario,
  • God doesn't force man to fall
  • but He needs him to fall
  • needs him to fall early, before he has children
  • Satan is actually doing God's bidding in the garden
  • Jesus Christ then can save all mankind, not just some
  • But not all are saved because not all believe (a different thread, not to be discussed here)

This doesn't try to account for the role of women (apologies to women), specifically of Eve. Please don't hold that against me for this conversation, at least.

But it does suggest why there was only one prohibition in the garden, and it also gives man responsibility for his sin, despite God's sovereignty in "making" it come to pass.

If you reply to this thread, please know that I appreciate and desire to hear all contrary arguments, but I will likely argue back--not because I do't appreciate the opposing view, but because I want to flesh it out, in what I perceive to be the foundational spirit of TOL.
 

Truster

New member
The fall was certainly decreed, because the people Messiah would redeem were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. They were chosen in Him because they would need to be saved.
 

Derf

Well-known member
The fall was certainly decreed, because the people Messiah would redeem were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. They were chosen in Him because they would need to be saved.
Hi Truster,
Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Some reasons I have a hard time with that being a reason the fall was decreed:
1. If God decided to save some without their input, then He might as well have made them not to sin in the first place.

2. My understanding of the open view suggests that people were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, not as specific individuals, but that God planned for the second Adam to have "descendants" so to speak, and all descendants of Christ--those that would be "in Christ" by belief in Him--were chosen as a group "in Christ". If everybody was chosen that was going to be saved ahead of time, then all that were not chosen were not "so loved by God that He gave His only son".

3. The "in Christ" seems to me to be an antitype of those that sinned "in Adam", by coming from his loins, similar to Levi giving a tithe to Melchizedek through Abraham (Heb 7:9).


If, however, God decreed the fall in order to make sure that all could be saved (even if all are not), then He shows His love--His agape love that may go unrequited.

What do you think?
 

Truster

New member
1. If God decided to save some without their input, then He might as well have made them not to sin in the first place.

Prior to the creation of the earth and of man. The host of heaven only knew of the justice, wrath and power of the Almighty. There was no redemption, forgiveness or grace unto the angels that fell.
To manifest His grace it was necessary to have a reason for the display of the attributes of grace. These were displayed in Yah Veh coming to seek and to save Adam and Eve.
 

Derf

Well-known member
1. If God decided to save some without their input, then He might as well have made them not to sin in the first place.

Prior to the creation of the earth and of man. The host of heaven only knew of the justice, wrath and power of the Almighty. There was no redemption, forgiveness or grace unto the angels that fell.
To manifest His grace it was necessary to have a reason for the display of the attributes of grace. These were displayed in Yah Veh coming to seek and to save Adam and Eve.

Why does He need to manifest His grace to the angels, to whom grace is not available? Seems like a mean streak in God, which I don't believe to be the case.

And if He NEEDS to manifest His grace, and He requires sinners to do so, then He is unfulfilled without sin. Therefor you've just told me that God NEEDS sin.

Maybe I misunderstood where you were heading.
 

Truster

New member
Why does He need to manifest His grace to the angels, to whom grace is not available? Seems like a mean streak in God, which I don't believe to be the case.

And if He NEEDS to manifest His grace, and He requires sinners to do so, then He is unfulfilled without sin. Therefor you've just told me that God NEEDS sin.

Maybe I misunderstood where you were heading.

He doesn't ''have to'' and He doesn't ''need to''. He choses to.
 

Derf

Well-known member
He doesn't ''have to'' and He doesn't ''need to''. He choses to.

Ok, Then back to my other assertion: If he doesn't need to manifest His grace, for what purpose is it to manifest grace to those that can't partake in it--the angels, that is?:confused:
 

Truster

New member
Ok, Then back to my other assertion: If he doesn't need to manifest His grace, for what purpose is it to manifest grace to those that can't partake in it--the angels, that is?:confused:

The angels that fell glorify His Holiness, judgement and His wrath. The angels that stood, in their first state, did so by grace and this will be to His glory. This is revealed in Ephesians:

Ephesians 1:10 KJV
 

Derf

Well-known member
The angels that fell glorify His Holiness, judgement and His wrath. The angels that stood, in their first state, did so by grace and this will be to His glory. This is revealed in Ephesians:

Ephesians 1:10 KJV

I'm not sure I can see from that verse how angels stood in their first estate "by grace". It neither mentions angels (directly) or grace (at all). If "all things in heaven" counts for angels, then "all things on earth" must count for demons, yes?

So is it grace that brings punishment to demons? That doesn't seem to fit any definition of grace I ever heard.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Why does He need to manifest His grace to the angels, to whom grace is not available? Seems like a mean streak in God, which I don't believe to be the case.

And if He NEEDS to manifest His grace, and He requires sinners to do so, then He is unfulfilled without sin. Therefor you've just told me that God NEEDS sin.

Maybe I misunderstood where you were heading.

Maybe we, God's children must experience sin, pain and suffering, disease and death, in order to completely know God and return to Him in the end.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
...UNLESS the first man sins BEFORE he has offspring.

So, what if God actually put man in the garden to fail (apologies to the other post along this line) and it was because He needed him to fail that the test was so easy, and that Satan was there to entice him?

The reason He needed him to fail is to make sure that there were no people that were not covered in His plan for salvation. Note that I didn't say "no people that were not saved", but all could have access to the salvation.

So in my scenario,
  • God doesn't force man to fall
  • but He needs him to fall
  • needs him to fall early, before he has children
  • Satan is actually doing God's bidding in the garden
  • Jesus Christ then can save all mankind, not just some
  • But not all are saved because not all believe (a different thread, not to be discussed here)

This doesn't try to account for the role of women (apologies to women), specifically of Eve. Please don't hold that against me for this conversation, at least.

But it does suggest why there was only one prohibition in the garden, and it also gives man responsibility for his sin, despite God's sovereignty in "making" it come to pass.

If you reply to this thread, please know that I appreciate and desire to hear all contrary arguments, but I will likely argue back--not because I do't appreciate the opposing view, but because I want to flesh it out, in what I perceive to be the foundational spirit of TOL.

God allowed, not needed.
 

Derf

Well-known member
God allowed, not needed.
Hi PJ,
Yes, but no. My assertion is that God needed ADAM to fall to keep from losing everybody else. Yes, He allowed Adam to fall. But no, He also needed Adam to fall (before he had offspring) in order for his plan to save the world to succeed.

It was important that Adam sin before his children were conceived or born--I'm not sure which.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Maybe we, God's children must experience sin, pain and suffering, disease and death, in order to completely know God and return to Him in the end.

If those things are "needed" then God "needed" Adam to fall. So you agree with my premise, but for different reasons?

I can see how knowing sin, pain, suffering, disease, and death would help us to better appreciate God, and help us want to return to Him. That suggests that God needs sin, etc., for His glory to be full. I'm not sure I buy that. I think that's what Truster was saying, too. Maybe it is the case, but it seems like it puts God in a box that He doesn't fit in too well. And that He then must be the author of sin for His full glory to manifest.

But Adam didn't need those things in the beginning. Neither did he need to "return" to God prior to his fall. And if he obeyed, then presumably those things (sin, suffering, disease, death) would never have begun. I'm not sure pain fits with those others in your list. God told Eve he would "multiply" her pain in childbirth, not introduce pain in childbirth. Pain is one of those things that is necessary for survival--it keeps us from burning ourselves and cutting off our fingers and such.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
If those things are "needed" then God "needed" Adam to fall. So you agree with my premise, but for different reasons?

I can see how knowing sin, pain, suffering, disease, and death would help us to better appreciate God, and help us want to return to Him. That suggests that God needs sin, etc., for His glory to be full. I'm not sure I buy that. I think that's what Truster was saying, too. Maybe it is the case, but it seems like it puts God in a box that He doesn't fit in too well. And that He then must be the author of sin for His full glory to manifest.

But Adam didn't need those things in the beginning. Neither did he need to "return" to God prior to his fall. And if he obeyed, then presumably those things (sin, suffering, disease, death) would never have begun. I'm not sure pain fits with those others in your list. God told Eve he would "multiply" her pain in childbirth, not introduce pain in childbirth. Pain is one of those things that is necessary for survival--it keeps us from burning ourselves and cutting off our fingers and such.
I was thinking more of emotional and spiritual pain -
 

Derf

Well-known member
I was thinking more of emotional and spiritual pain -

Yes, that makes sense--that we often need those things to drive us to God. Do you think it's because of our sin that it now takes those kind of things to get us to return to Him? Didn't seem like those things were needed in the Garden.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
My understanding of the open view suggests that people were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, not as specific individuals, but that God planned for the second Adam to have "descendants" so to speak, and all descendants of Christ--those that would be "in Christ" by belief in Him--were chosen as a group "in Christ". If everybody was chosen that was going to be saved ahead of time, then all that were not chosen were not "so loved by God that He gave His only son".

Let us look at this passage where Peter is describing those who received his epistle as "elect according to the foreknowledge of God":

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied...Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls" (1 Pet.1:1-2,9).​

We can understand that when Peter uses the pronouns "you" and "your" in this passage He is speaking of "individual" salvation." Of course it is "individuals" who are saved because it is individuals who do the thing which results in salvation. Here we see Paul and those with him telling an "individual" how he can be saved:

"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).​

Therefore, the Lord's choosing is in regard to choosing "individuals."

Derf, if I made a mistake in my reasoning then please tell me exactly where I made an error.

Thanks!
 

Truster

New member
If you experience regeneration then all the above and more will be clear. The symbolism of the strait gate and the narrow way becomes obvious to those that have passed through the gate and are in the way.
 

Truster

New member
Hi Truster,
Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Some reasons I have a hard time with that being a reason the fall was decreed:
1. If God decided to save some without their input, then He might as well have made them not to sin in the first place.

2. My understanding of the open view suggests that people were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, not as specific individuals, but that God planned for the second Adam to have "descendants" so to speak, and all descendants of Christ--those that would be "in Christ" by belief in Him--were chosen as a group "in Christ". If everybody was chosen that was going to be saved ahead of time, then all that were not chosen were not "so loved by God that He gave His only son".

3. The "in Christ" seems to me to be an antitype of those that sinned "in Adam", by coming from his loins, similar to Levi giving a tithe to Melchizedek through Abraham (Heb 7:9).


If, however, God decreed the fall in order to make sure that all could be saved (even if all are not), then He shows His love--His agape love that may go unrequited.

What do you think?

If you experience regeneration then all the above and more will be clear. The symbolism of the strait gate and the narrow way becomes obvious to those that have passed through the gate and are in the way.
 

Derf

Well-known member
If you experience regeneration then all the above and more will be clear. The symbolism of the strait gate and the narrow way becomes obvious to those that have passed through the gate and are in the way.

So you are asserting that I don't understand what you're saying because I'm not regenerated.

Let's pretend that's true for just a minute. That means that my belief in Jesus Christ as the only Son of God and the only hope of salvation, who died for my sins and rose again to demonstrate what waits for us who believe, i.e. resurrection from the dead, is a false gospel. Because something else needs to happen apart from belief in Christ for me to be regenerated.

Is that truly what you are saying?

Not only that, but such a response is a cop out--it removes from you the responsibility of giving an answer for the hope that lies within you. Only the regenerate will understand the important stuff anyway--and they already know it--so there's no need to explain anything important. Kind of makes me wonder why you would respond to anything in one of these forums--those who understand won't need to hear your response, and everybody else CAN'T understand your response.

Kind of makes all Christianity seem like an exercise of preaching to the choir, don't you think? But Jesus came into the world to save SINNERS, not the regenerate--they don't need saving.
 
Top