Apparently, this post is not Innocence vs. Purity "Revisited." I thought I’d already written a post on innocence vs. purity, but apparently I haven’t. A great oversight on my part!
Today, a man I respect and like posted a very interesting post on Facebook, but it implied that God was not at fault for the defect of sin in us. (Which is an immense defect, see Rom. 7.) Perhaps there is some accuracy to that, but to be honest I have to say I don’t agree. The God who can create the universe and foresee all things could not have been ignorant of what would happen if he created man in the manner he did.
I want to argue that the fall of man was a good thing.
God’s plan was never innocence; it was incorruptible purity, and that required the loss of innocence. He always intended to sum all things up in Christ, to make us the sons of God in a more real way than Adam was, and to wind up with new creations that are incorruptible.
In the other post that I thought I wrote, but didn’t, I wanted to say that we should be the same way with our own children. Protecting their innocence is not the goal, though admittedly that innocence should be guarded for a time. Preparing them to meet temptation so that they will preserve their purity, that is the goal.
There are a lot of opinions and rumors about Constantine, the Council of Nicea, and the events of the fourth century that changed Christianity to Christendom. Not only will you get the incredible story, with all its twists, plots, and intrigues, but you will find out how history is done and never wonder what is true again.
The Rest of the Old, Old Story 