So Which is it, Was Adam purposed to Fall or was he purposed for the incarnation of Christ Jesus?

In this we must keep in mind, God changed the names of several in the scriptures. Knowing the circumstances of why He did can help us with this.

So whatta ya think?

Thats good thinking. Sez much.. . .))

C'mon, you can do better than that, can't you?

I say the latter because God wanted "many sons brought unto [His] Glory". . . Paul wrote that.

From that I surmise you believe Adam was created to fail just so Jesus could be born 4 thousand years later to redeem us. Did I get that right or did I leave something out?

))) Patience, Dear One.

preacher777E wrote:
That is very true.The hebrew word for,in the begining (B'resheet)contains the gospel when you break it down.It seems possible that Adam being one with Eve was destroyed with the sin of Eve.What I mean is that she had to be 100% different from him but his love for her may have been the same.In Jer.3:1 it states that if a women is divorced and joins to another it would corrupt the land to take her back, but he (Yeshua) said come back.This is no contradiction.In Num.5 we hear about a cup, to save his bride he had to take on flesh and take the cup meant for us.Could this be the cup he talked about in the garden.Adam was a shadow of Messiah.

Well you are still looking at Adam after the fact, after the fact of his failure that now required a redeemer to cancel out. What if Adam had not failed? We must remember God said multiply, replenish the earth. What did God have in mind if not a creation filled and perfected in Him? Perfection requires divinity. Certainly He didn't want it whereby procreation would be forever tempted; hindered/badgered by the enemy of God that sought to destroy what God created; to sever it so completely from God to place it in the same damnable condition he was in. Certainly it could never have been where the sinless and the sinful could exist together, a mixer of sinless ones mixed in with sinful ones. Sorry that does not compute. There had to be a conclusion in God for Adam had he not transgressed. What we can see from scripture is not speculative but supportive that Adam was to be what Jesus became, i.e., a Divine-Human representative in the Godhead. Of course we know in order for that to happen Adam would have to become divine perfection, again, as Jesus, in His flesh, became, a forever Glorified body.

The devil messed that up by his solicitations to Eve.

The devil messed that up by his solicitations to Eve.

God doesn't have a plan B. If that's the case, plan A was a miserable failure, which means God is far less than perfect. God forbid that any should suggest such!

The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.

The subject of this thread appears to be one of the many age-old arguments.

As with many of the others(age-old arguments)this one to is connected and related to various other doctrines.

I believe the reason for such connection is due to the Truth that none would argue, namely this, "But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth." (Job 23:13)

Yet men have and do attempt to bring Him down to their level, Psa 50:21-23 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such a one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes. Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver. Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I show the salvation of God.

May we truly meditate upon His Word and think upon The Most High Who fills Heaven and earth.

Consider what He is saying here. Do we know this God? Oh! that we'd acquaint ourselves with Him, and not some image we've formed in our own minds that we make into God and present such to others.

If I'm correct, I think the subject of this thread is the argument between two terms.

From Elwell Evangelical Dictionary

The term "supralapsarianism" comes from the Latin words supra and lapsus; the decree of predestination was considered to be "above" (supra) or logically "before" the decree concerning the fall (lapsus), while the infralapsarians viewed it as "below" (infra) or logically "after" the decree concerning the fall. The contrast of the two views is evident from the following summaries.

The logical order of the decrees in the supralapsarian scheme is:

(1) God's decree to glorify himself through the election of some and the reprobation of others;
(2) as a means to that goal, the decree to create those elected and reprobated;
(3) the decree to permit the fall; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.

The logical order of the decrees according to infralapsarians is:

(1) God's decree to glorify himself through the creation of the human race;
(2) the decree to permit the fall;
(3) the decree to elect some of the fallen race to salvation and to pass by the others and condemn them for their sin; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.

Neither side suggests that the elect were chosen after Adam sinned. God made His choice before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4)—long before Adam sinned. Both infras and supras (and even many Arminians) agree on this.

H. Bavinck has this to say, "Supralapsarianism undoubtedly has in its favor the fact that it refrains from every attempt to justify God, and that both with respect to reprobation and with respect to election it rests in God's sovereign, incomprehensible, yet wise and holy good pleasure."

He further states,"Now Reformed theologians all agree that the entrance of sin and punishment was willed and determined by God. It is perfectly true that words like “permission” and “foreknowledge” do not solve anything. The difficulty remains the same, and the same questions arise; viz., why, if God foreknew everything, did he create man fallible, and why did he not prevent the fall? Why did he allow all men to fall in Adam? Why does he not grant to all men faith and the blessing of hearing the Gospel? In brief, if God foreknows and permits something, he does this either “willingly” or “unwillingly.” The latter is impossible. Accordingly. only the former remains: God's permission is an “efficacious permission,” an act of his will. Nor should it be supposed that the idea of permission is of any force or value over against the charge that God is the Author of sin; for he who permits or allows someone to sin and to perish in his sin although he was able to prevent him from sinning is just as guilty as he who incites someone to sin. On the other hand, however, all agree that although sin is not “excluded” from the will of God it is, nevertheless, “contrary” to his will; that it is not merely a means to the final goal, but a disturbance in God's creation; and that Adam's fall was not a step ahead but a fall in the real sense of the word. It is also a fact that admits of no doubt that, however much logical reasoning may demur, no one is able to suggest other and better words than “permission, foreknowledge, preterition, dereliction,” etc."

Bavinck's concluding remarks, "Neither the supra- nor the infralapsarian view of predestination is able to do full justice to the truth of Scripture, and to satisfy our theological thinking. The true element in supralapsarianism is: that it emphasizes the unity of the divine decree and the fact that God had one final aim in view, that sin's entrance into the universe was not something unexpected and unlooked for by God but that he willed sin in a certain sense, and that the work of creation was immediately adapted to God's redemptive activity so that even before the fall, i.e., in the creation of Adam, Christ's coming was definitely fixed. And the true element in infralapsarianism is: that the decrees manifest not only a unity but also a diversity (with a view to their several objects), that these decrees reveal not only a teleological but also a causal order, that creation and fall cannot merely be regarded as means to an end, and that sin should be regarded not as an element of progress but rather as an element of disturbance in the universe so that in and by itself it cannot have been willed by God."

Some of the names of men who fall on one side or the other are:

Infralapsarianism

John Calvin
John Owen
Thomas Watson
Matthew Henry
George Whitefield
Jonathan Edwards
C.H. Spurgeon
Charles Hodge
Thornwell
William G.T. Shedd
L. Boettner
Anthony Hoekema
Robert Lewis Dabney
B.B. Warfield
Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Scott Hill
Jason Robertson
R.C. Sproul
John Piper

Supralapsarianism

Beza
John Gill
Abraham Kuyper
Herman Hoeksema
A. W. Pink
Cornelius Van Til
Gordon Clark
Louis Berkhof
Karl Barth
Robert Reymond

The above names are just a few of the many which could be listed.

There is also the sublapsarianism view and also what is known as Amyraldism.

Under the Amyraldism view would be:

Amyraldism

Richard Baxter
John Bunyan
Timothy Dwight
A. H. Strong
Henry Thiessen
J.C. Ryle
Lewis Sperry Chafer
R.T. Kendall

These studies can be and are mentally exhausting.

Therefore I will stop here.

If any are interested they may do further study on their own.

As for me, I am content knowing Him and His absolute sovereignty, and will serve The LORD God Who is omnipotent and reigneth.

Adam was purposed to bring pleasure to His Creator, as a son was to any Father.[in human terms] In the creation of Adam, made after the image of God himself, and possessing the attributes of the Father, Adam was given a will, and a conscience. God has a will, in the affairs on the Earth, and His conscience is part of his character, which we call Holy.

My answer is neither. Adam was not purposed to fall; It was simply a fruit of a decision he made, through his very own volition, to act as he saw fit. The angels possessed this very essence also, as some chose to act as they desired. We call these acts sin. It is willfulness outside of the will of God. Without a will, you are not a personality, and technically do not have a conscience. You are not a person, or a personality.

Adam was therefore not purposed to usher in the Redeemer either. It was God's purpose to redeem Adam, not through the creation of Adam, but an attribute of God that we know as Love, or compassion, for the weakness, and eternal trouble that his beloved creation had got himself into.

God sits in the front of the room, and at the back of the room, at the same time. In his economy, we live before him even now, in New Jerusalem. He is the beginning, and the end; the Alpha and Omega; the first and the last. The Bible speaks of the Lamb that was slain, before the foundations of the Earth. Jesus, laid his life down, before there was Adam.

So Adam was not created to manifest the Messiah, through His sin, and God's following mercies. It was the plan before all things, stemming from God's character, to act on behalf of him, and his offspring, after making a terrible mistake, all on his own. God foresaw Adam's bite into eternal death.

For God so loved the World, that He gave. He gave. It's that simple. The wheels of the incarnation were spinning long before in eternities past, before Adam fell. Adam's choice. God loved. Jesus came for this.

"Did George W. Bush invade Iraq because he liked boxing, and enjoyed a healthy fight, or was it because he has seen too many John Wayne movies?"

This is called a straw man, a term that Sermonindex folks are well aware of, as they are inundated with this kind of logic. It means basing your opinions and statements upon a faulty assumption, and then comparing that assumption with your ideas to form a division that may appear to qualify an empirical judgement. [empirical means the logical process of "if this is so, therefore this stands to reason."]
'Purposed to fall"

In your case, your inquisitive assumptions are both faulty, and without merit, so that whatever is derived upon either logic would bolster your perceived enigma unto the negative. It is Questioning one untruth in an either or process to accept another untruth. In one sense, it is not worthy of responding to, for this reason alone. I question whether your inquisition is authentic, and not contrived for reasons of controversy or the "uncaused cause"...ergo; the enigma.

If Adam was purposed to fall, then was the human race purposed to fall. This means that my God designed much of humanity to boil in sulphur throughout Eternities, as His will. You have my God mixed up with another of his creations, that became pure evil. The first leg of your straw man; to me; a little blasphemous. Jesus suffered, after he left his throne in pure love, to bleed and be tortured to rescue Adam. It was not His purpose for Adam to fall, but to live, as an object of His affections. He adored Adam, and redeemed him, at great cost to Himself....the death and Sacrifice of His Son, Yahweh Yeshua!

"Purposed for the incarnation"
This has similar implications.

The incarnation was arrived at before the foundation of the world, when Jesus was slain. Adams purpose was that God desired a son, and children, that He could pour Himself into, and enjoy. God loves, and he loved Adam. He saw that all of Creation was "GOOD"

Jesus was "incarnated" to be Crucified, and overcome Death, not for reasons of Adams existence. "For this reason was the Son of Man manifested, that He might destroy the works of the Devil!" Jesus came to rescue Adam, and his children, from a fate to horrible to think. We were helpless.

Adam was not purposed "for the incarnation". He was simply bound and without hope, in the midst of his life, and driven away in despair from Eden. The "incarnation" was not founded on the fact that Adam existed, or was created, but in order to Redeem Adam, the Lord Yahweh had to become an Adam...of the race of men. "Lo, a body has thou prepared for Me!"[it is written in the BOOK!"]

Adam was purposed to live, and be, in the fellowship of His Creator. Jesus manifested Himself to bring mercies, and restoration, in spite of Adam's apparent hopeless state; to overcome Death, and the grave...which are, by the way, Eternal places.

Janus was an early name of Satan within the Babylonian religions. He was depicted as a two faced being, with only one head. This is what your straw man reminds me of. Two lies opposing the other to prove one or the other as a truth.

"Has God Said?"............