Beneath the subtitle “The Fall of Adam was included in the Divine plan” we find these words:
“Yet God in no way compelled man to fall. He simply withheld that undeserved constraining grace with which Adam would infallibly not have fallen, which grace He was under no obligation to bestow” (Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 235).
What’s with this concept of “constraining grace”? Well, it’s just another antichristian theory made up by those who hate the sovereign God of Scripture. Marc Carpenter elaborates on this fact:
“But we have Calvinist authors and seminarians who make up all kinds of theories in order to justify their view of their god who doesn’t cause everything while remaining sovereign, and none of these theories has any basis in the Bible. They just had to concoct these fables, these fictions, about God, in order to make all their preconceived notions fit into the Bible’s clear teaching of God’s sovereignty. And they really don’t do a very good job of it. They use a lot of seminary-type words and phrases to try to impress people and get people to think they have this special knowledge of God, so we’re supposed to just defer to them, because, after all, they’re smarter and more well-read and have gone to highly-esteemed seminaries. But if you look at what they’re really saying amidst all the rhetoric, you’ll see that their house is built on sand. They have no biblical basis for their fabrications” (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/romans75.htm).
The phrase “constraining grace” is just unbiblical nonsense employed in an effort to deny God’s sovereign authority and prerogative to do what He wants with His creatures. Also, even this concept of “grace” before the entrance of sin makes no sense.
“In respect to himself, Adam might have stood had he so chosen; but in respect to God it was certain that he would fall. He acted as freely as if there had been no decree, and yet as infallibly as if there had been no liberty” (p. 235).
How about this:
“‘Adam acted as freely as if there had been no [God]’ since he is merely a free-moving materialistic mass of not-so-fortuitous atoms.”
Or how about this:
“‘Adam acted as freely as if there had been no [God]’ since Adam himself is God.”
Or perhaps this:
“‘Adam acted as freely as if there had been no [Potter]’ since he is the piece of amorphous clay who says to its former, He has no hands” (cf. Isaiah 45:9).
And if you can hack it, here’s even more from Boettner:
“It may be well just at this point, to say something more about the nature of the fall. Adam was given a most favorable opportunity to secure eternal life and blessedness for himself and his posterity” (p. 236).
A short time ago I was discussing with Marc Carpenter this blasphemous statement from Boettner. Marc’s cutting response went something like this:
“Boettner is saying that God had given Adam ‘a most favorable opportunity’ to erase Jesus Christ from history.”
Some additional insidious implications to Adam being “given a most favorable opportunity” to erase Jesus Christ from history are:
(1) A “most favorable opportunity to” usurp the throne of Christ and crown himself king by earning “eternal life and blessedness for himself and his posterity.”
(2) A “most favorable opportunity” to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing (cf. Revelation 5:12).
(3) A “most favorable opportunity” for a mere creature to obtain the SAME GLORY as Jesus Christ and thus profane and cheapen the absolute uniqueness and exclusivity of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ for His people.
Why do so many Calvinists like Boettner say it’s so mysteriously perplexing how Adam fell? I truly wonder if comments like that do not reflect a secret desire on their part that Adam had passed the supposed “probationary period” and erased Jesus Christ from history by adorning himself with the glory that belongs SOLELY to Jesus Christ. They would attribute to Adam qualities of character that belong to Christ ALONE. They have not in mind the glory of God, but the glory of men. Next Page (38)