One of the peculiarities of the Arminian/Calvinist debate is that you actually have some Arminian epologists who indignantly deny that God intended the Fall–or its sinful aftermath.
At one level, I appreciate the Arminian dilemma. If, on the one hand, the Arminian admits that God intended the Fall (or other sins), then he also has to admit that God foreintended the Fall.
But once you travel that far down the road, it’s very hard to slam on the brakes before your logical destination. How, on the one hand, can you affirm that God foreintended the fall while, on the other hand, you vehemently deny that God foreordained the Fall? How thin can you split hairs?
The popular appeal of Arminianism lies in its shallow, maudlin charm. Yet it’s quite challenging for the Arminian to brandish his grandiloquent vituperation against a foreordinate fall if his own position commits him to a foreintentional fall.
Moreover, you only have to combine two axiomatic Arminian beliefs to generate this dilemma:
i) God foreknew the fall
ii) God’s creative fiat was a necessary precondition of the fall
If the outcome was both foreseeable and avoidable, then God foreintended the outcome.
The outcome was foreseeable. Yet it was also voluntary inasmuch as God had the option of creating a world with that outcome, creating a world without that outcome, or creating no world at all. I mean, doesn’t God have the freedom to do otherwise?