"Did God Plan Man's Fall?" is the Question

One of the very important fundamental questions that we must ask as Christians to define our Christian faith is, "Did God plan man's fall?" That question is not just a question that ends with just an answer, but rather it is a question that probes one to ask other questions regarding who God is and what it means to be a human being and a Christian.

For starters, such a question must first be understood as a question that probes for an answer that we might not ever really get, simply because of our finiteness and short-sightedness. Such a question must be understood really as a reminder that "God's ways are not our ways", and "who can know God's thoughts but the Spirit of God himself?" The question "Did God plan man's fall" should be asked with the understanding that God is mysterious and that not everything that happens in mankind's life is comprehendible.

To me, "Did God plan man's fall?" leads to the question, "Did God plan for man to sin?",  which leads to the other question, "Is God the author of sin?" Today I had the lovely opportunity to talk to my awesome boyfriend about these concepts. He likes the idea of Calvinism; me- not so much. But I'll admit, sometimes when we talk about it, I almost want to agree with him because the way he explains Calvinism makes sense. Yet, I can't bring myself to jump onto the train of championing Calvinism simply for the question, "Is God the author of sin?" which I believe is a yes if you were to answer the question, "Did God plan man's fall?" as a Calvinist.

My boyfriend was insistent that the question, "Is God the author of Sin?" didn't make sense; he pointed out to me that sin is not a created thing, that rather is really just the absence of God, good, or holiness. He used the illustration of a piece of paper. God makes a piece of paper and the paper is whole, complete, and perfect. But then man comes along, damages it, and makes holes into the paper. Now, the holes wouldn't exist without the paper, but because of the paper, they are there. God made the paper but he didn't make the holes, man did.With that, I understood what my boyfriend was saying, that everything that happens is in God's plan, in God's will. God predestines everything, including when man sins (and that's where I understand it as God being the author of sin). God didn't make the holes, but it was in God's plan, in God's will, because he knew that man would make the holes (which is where I understood it as him engineering it so that man does sin). Following the illustration, my boyfriend explained that if God knew that Adam and Eve would disobey him, then why put the tree there in the first place? Since God knew it would happen, and he put the tree there, the only sound explanation is that God planned for Adam and Eve to fall. He knew that Adam and Eve would choose to sin, but he put the tree there anyway. It was in his plan, in his will, for them to sin. Otherwise, he wouldn't have put the tree there.

I disagreed; while I certainly can't explain why God, knowing that they would sin, would put the tree there anyway, to me, the more reasonable explanation is that God wanted Adam and Eve to exercise their free will, to practice their obedience to him. My boyfriend thought my explanation not reasonable at all...

And that's where I'll admit. He explains it very convincingly. But yet, I believe it isn't consistent with God's character as Scripture gives testimony. Why would God prohibit man from sinning and then make a plan and engineer it so that man can sin according to his plan when he prohibited it in the first place? I can agree, God allows man to sin, and can even use it for good but not because it is his absolute will for man to sin. We can say it is his permissible will, he permits man to sin but I cannot agree that God wants man to sin or even make a plan so that man does sin. In my mind, to plan sin is to be the author of sin. It just doesn't make sense. Perhaps I may have misunderstood my boyfriend at some point... the good thing is we will continue to discuss these hearty theological conversations.

There was a time when I thought I agreed with Calvinism some time before having met my boyfriend. When we met, I still considered myself Calvinist, to a certain degree. But that's only because I didn't really know what Calvinism taught as a whole, and what I did know, I didn't really think it through. And I'll be honest, while I now know the essentials of TULIP, I actually haven't read Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" yet. So I can't say that I even know for sure what Calvin taught 100% because -shame on me - I have depended on today's Reformed ministers to summarize it for me. I haven't actually verified if what these ministers say that is Calvinism is actually what Calvin taught himself.

Of course, someone Calvinist would probably tell me, "You don't have to read Institutes. Just read the Gospel. That is essentially what Calvin taught." However, while I can agree with some of the points of Calvinism, according to TULIP, I do not agree 100% that the Gospel is what Calvin, according to TULIP, essentially taught. And as one can see by having read what I wrote already, one of the main problems for me is Predestination. My question is "How can God predestine someone to Hell if really it's not the person's fault that God chose not to reach out to that person and save them like He did for the person whom He did save?"  We could answer, "Because God is God and his ways are mysterious." Certainly, God's ways are mysterious, but even more certainly, God is not a contradiction to himself; God is consistent, and in Scripture we find that God is love, and he is not a respecter of persons. How else can we interpret Scripture when John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life."   

After talking to my boyfriend today, I realize that in my search for Truth, I need to stop being lazy, take my time and examine, really examine, those doctrines that I hold and those doctrines that I don't agree with. It is something that I have started doing, about two years ago. But I realize I need to dig more. I should read Calvin's Institutes and most importantly dig deeper into Scriptures and Church History (perhaps I should attempt do a small series on what I find). 

On a final note, I remind myself as my Orthodox Christian friends would tell me, "Remember, Christianity isn't about just reading and studying theological concepts. It's not a mental exercise. It is about living Christianity. It is about experience."

   

Glory to God for all things!