Featured The Will of God in the Fall of Man

God's desire is that Adam not eat. But God allows Adam to eat, in defiance of God's stated desire.

That is not really that difficult, unless there is an ulterior motive for asking the question.

The problem seems to be in the rather inconcise statements of definition and explanation.

The decretive will of God is His eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise, and sovereign purpose, comprehending at once all things that ever were or will be in their causes, conditions, successions, and relations, and determining their certain futurition.

The permissive will of God is, simply put, that which God allows that it not part of His eternal decree.

Because God is sovereign, nothing happens that is outside His will. But there is a difference between what He causes (decretive) and what He allows (permissive).

And anyone who cannot, or will not, understand that probably has an agenda and is very likely guilty of trolling.

So, with that said, this thread has become unfruitful and will be closed sometime after 3PM CDT.

 

No, he is not avoiding the question. You are avoiding the answer. He said, "He didn't have too. He knew what would occur."

God did not decretively will the fall. He allowed it. But due to His eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise, and sovereign purpose, comprehending at once all things that ever were or will be in their causes, conditions, successions, and relations, and determining their certain futurition, He was prepared for the fall and had set certain conditions, successions, and events in motion to bring about His own honor and glory in the sight of His creation. QED

 

I don't trash free will. There is no such thing to trash. "Free will" is to deny that the lost person is not in bondage to the law of sin and death.

Adam certainly was a free moral agent, because God allowed him to be. Adam was given the ability to make choices within his moral nature, and, because his moral nature was innocence, he could have chosen to obey, but chose his wife over his God.

Today, as all are by nature fallen, we can only make choices within the confines of our moral nature and thus the lost man can only sin. To the point that even "the plowing of the wicked, is sin." Proverbs 21:4. And "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." Isaial 64:6.

It is only after we are converted to Christ, and indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God that we are able to obey, receive the things of God, and follow Him. 1 Corinthians 2:14 cf Ephesians 2:10.

Before conversion our will was in bondage to the law of sin and death.

After conversion our will is in bondage to the law of new life in Christ.

The latter is better.

 

And they are correct. Note the words "Adam may eat." Not, Adam must eat." Permissive not decretive will.

That is exactly what God's will was. He allowed Adam to eat but did not decree he must eat.

Only because you refuse to entertain the facts of the definition.

Look, it is obvious you are mad at all those who you identify as "Calvinist" so you are trying very hard to manufacture a contradiction that exists only in your own mind. And when it is explained to you there is no contradiction, you refuse to see it because you are so emotionally attached to your anger at "Calvinists" that you cannot admit even for a single second, that they may have a point.

I will. But thank you for giving me that permission. Does the fact you have given me permission to close the thread mean you demand I close the thread and that you wholeheartedly agree with my closing it?

 

Context is King when understanding what others say. It is obvious to me that agedman was saying that, "No, He didn't have to" was how "He didn't have to" was to be understood. And I can't help but think you know that.

Is there anyone on this thread who has stated unequivocally that God does irresistibly and immutably author every thought and intent of man? If so can you quote that person for me? Thanks.

 

And that may be the problem. You are attempting to argue against something you don't fully understand. (And I know how angry it makes you to be told you don't really understand the issue, judging from some of your previous posts, but the fact remains, my definition of "free will" is exactly what the term means. Read "The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther. It is a cataloging of his written debate with Desiderius Erasmus regarding the "free will" issue. It is very eye opening.)

No. Everybody makes choices. Lost and saved. Every day we make hundreds, perhaps thousands, of choices. But that is not "free will." That is, as I said, free moral agency. We are free to make choices, but those choices are confined (in bondage) to our moral nature. The "natural man" can only make natural choices. And the "spiritual man" can only make spiritual choices. Our problem is that we, as the redeemed, have both the natural man and spiritual man battling within us. As we mature in Christ and grow in grace (hopefully) the spiritual man will come to dominate our choices, but the danger remains that the natural (old nature) man is still there and still causing us trouble in our making of choices.

I will extend the deadline (I already have) to give you time to respond.

 

But that was what you kept asking for and kept claiming that you were not given. Now that you have unequivocally been given a precise definition you accuse of "getting lost in definitions." You seem to want it have it both ways.

He is telling us we may not (we don't have his permission) to commit adultery, but if we do so, we will be held accountable for our disobedience. That is why God included the consequences of our actions with his command.

Except God did NOT "really want Adam to eat." He made that clear. "No, not to eat." But He allowed Adam to disobey Him, and held Adam accountable for his disobedience.

Just because God knew, and had prepared for it, did not mean it was in God's perfect, decretive will for Adam to eat.

I know the sun will rise tomorrow, but I did not cause it to do so.

I know it will rain tonight, and I am prepared for it, but I did not cause it to rain.