Was Gods plan tworted after original sin?

[Odell]

I have been reading theology of the body. And I am still trying to grasp what JPII had to say about the fall. He says Gods plans where not. I of course believe him but can someone help me grasp this and what does the protestant church have to say on this? Or do we believe the same?

 

[thistle]

I have been reading theology of the body. And I am still trying to grasp what JPII had to say about the fall. He says Gods plans where not. I of course believe him but can someone help me grasp this and what does the protestant church have to say on this? Or do we believe the same?

I’ll let somebody else answer your main question but what do you mean by “the protestant church”? Which protestant church? There is no unity in protestantism. They all have different interpretations about most things.

 

[Mintaka]

Suppose I plan to drive down Highway X to Ytown. I say to you, “We could drive all the way to Y-town on Highway X, but I know for sure there’s going to be a traffic jam this time of day. So when we get to Z-ville, I’m going to get off Highway X and drive the rest of the way to Y-town on W Street.”

Were my plans for the drive thwarted? Or did I have a single plan, part of which was about the easy drive on Highway X and part of which was about getting around the traffic jam?

God could see all things in eternity that we only encounter one after another in time. So God always had the same plan for us. It included how things were in Eden before the Fall, and it also included what would happen to humanity after the Fall and how God would redeem us.

So God’s plan was not thwarted.

 

[Odell]

The incarnation is not an afterthought a second plan intended to rectify the first. Sin is a detour but no road block. Sin is not more powerfull than Gods plan to unite us with Christ. I know protestants view the fall differently they say our nature is corupt due to the fall. To me that would call for a second plan. I don’t see how that would follow with a catholic understanding of Gods original plan . So I’m curious if they view Gods plan any different than us?
To

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I have been reading theology of the body. And I am still trying to grasp what JPII had to say about the fall. He says Gods plans where not. I of course believe him but can someone help me grasp this and what does the protestant church have to say on this? Or do we believe the same?

At least in the Roman Catholic theological tradition, there have been two major schools of thought: the Thomist, and the Scotist​

Thomism - sees the Incarnation & Passion as a remedy for the Fall
Scotism - sees the Incarnation as part of God’s purpose in creation from the very beginning, even had there been no Fall.

To use the language of Calvinism: the foundation for the Incarnation is post-lapsarian for Thomists, pre-lapsarian for Scotists.

JP2, AFAICS, adopted the Scotist perspective. I think it is the perspective of the CCC as well.

It has the great advantage of avoiding any appearance of making the Incarnation dependent on human sin; its weakness is that the NT evidence appears to favour the Thomist perspective. OTOH, although the NT is clear that Christ came as Saviour (& that therefore, man needed to be saved, from God’s wrath at sin), a reply open to the Scotist is that the** mode** of the Incarnation, but not the fact of its occurring, is what the NT describes. IOW, because man needs salvation, the NT speaks of that need - but does not concern itself with the further question as to whether the Incarnation “would have” occurred anyway.

We’re getting into very deep waters - someone else will be able to put things better