The Will of God in the Fall of Man

[InTheLight]

And your answer is what, (a) or (b)?

God commands Adam not to eat. What is His will, that he may eat or not eat?

You will never get a straight answer. You will get a series of questions meant to divert the topic and lead you down a path of their choosing. Or you might get the ultimate Calvinist refuge of tough questions: "It's a mystery."

I've learned long ago that these discussions are futile because there is no logical consistency to Calvinism, er, the Doctrines of Grace. That's why I rarely participate.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[rigz]

You will never get a straight answer. You will get a series of questions meant to divert the topic and lead you down a path of their choosing. Or you might get the ultimate Calvinist refuge of tough questions: "It's a mystery."

I've learned long ago that these discussions are futile because there is no logical consistency to Calvinism, er, the Doctrines of Grace. That's why I rarely participate.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

You are a wise man.

The more rational among them avoid this and such other threads as plague.

 

[agedman]

A problem exists when attempting to place Eden and the experience, thought life, and spirituality in line with what human kind display following the fall.

One must understand that the first Adam was in total fellowship with God and could, as no one has since, face God and visit as good friends. What has terrified humankind since the fall, as experienced by the Israeli at the mountain (beginning with Ex. 19), Mosses at the bush (Ex. 3), Isaiah's commission (Isaiah 6), and even Mary's admission ("who am I...") Adam did not experience prior to the fall. One might make a substantial argument that Cain and Abel were like Adam in regard to being able to interact with God, but the account isn't quite as clear as to the level of fellowship rather that God's interaction was over worship experience.

Therefore, the question of God creating "evil" cannot be resolved by looking at Eden.

Rather, one must ask was "evil" a creation or a manifestation?

The Scriptures clearly teach that God created all things (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). That includes that enemy of believers.

However, one must not confuse creation and eternal perfection. When God created, He also organized, and established authorities. For example: In the animal kingdom, the authority of the "pack" is the alpha, the authority of the herd is the leader... Each authority gains that authority and demonstrates that authority by expressing skill and strength.

Evil was not created but was manifested when excess of dominance was desired. The alpha male in the animal kingdom may murder because of excess of dominance.

The same when that enemy of believers was disclosed with evil. Had evil not come to the garden, there would have been no fall.

Did God ordain, decree, will... for the fall to occur?

He didn't have too. He knew what would occur. He knew and therefore before the creation of this earth, Christ died. He provided redemption before the fall, just as He provided love before we knew how to respond in love.

God does not react to events. Example: Pharaoh was already hard heart, God just confirmed the hard heart into obstinacy.

Ok, just some random thoughts about some of the responses I recall on this thread.

 

[agedman]

May I suggest that "calvinism" and the "doctrines of Grace" are far better at giving answers than what is offered by many who oppose the two views.

However, if one suggests that all answers or better all correct answers are found even in the Scriptures, they are highly mistaken.

Answers in both those systems and even in the Scriptures are given consistent with what is being communicated. What is not communicated is not answered.

Btw, "Calvinism" isn't always what John Calvin taught or said any more than Joseph Arminus would agree with some of the views taught in his name, today. Some things, certainly, but other things, not.

 

[rigz]

A problem exists when attempting to place Eden and the experience, thought life, and spirituality in line with what human kind display following the fall.

I've heard this line of argument before.
Is it possible that the Will of God evolved radically following the fall?

One must understand that the first Adam was in total fellowship with God and could, as no one has since, face God and visit as good friends. What has terrified humankind since the fall, as experienced by the Israeli at the mountain (beginning with Ex. 19), Mosses at the bush (Ex. 3), Isaiah's commission (Isaiah 6), and even Mary's admission ("who am I...") Adam did not experience prior to the fall. One might make a substantial argument that Cain and Abel were like Adam in regard to being able to interact with God, but the account isn't quite as clear as to the level of fellowship rather that God's interaction was over worship experience.

Hmmm...excellent points

Therefore, the question of God creating "evil" cannot be resolved by looking at Eden.

But this is not the question AT ALL, rather we are asking whether God purposed,intended,willed Adam to do exactly that which He forbade him

Rather, one must ask was "evil" a creation or a manifestation?

The Scriptures clearly teach that God created all things (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). That includes that enemy of believers.

However, one must not confuse creation and eternal perfection. When God created, He also organized, and established authorities. For example: In the animal kingdom, the authority of the "pack" is the alpha, the authority of the herd is the leader... Each authority gains that authority and demonstrates that authority by expressing skill and strength.

Evil was not created but was manifested when excess of dominance was desired. The alpha male in the animal kingdom may murder because of excess of dominance.

The same when that enemy of believers was disclosed with evil. Had evil not come to the garden, there would have been no fall.

The highlighted; was it authored by God?

Did God ordain, decree, will... for the fall to occur?

He didn't have too. He knew what would occur. He knew and therefore before the creation of this earth, Christ died. He provided redemption before the fall, just as He provided love before we knew how to respond in love.

God does not react to events. Example: Pharaoh was already hard heart, God just confirmed the hard heart into obstinacy.

You are AVOIDING the question. He 'didn't have to' but the question is, did He author the Fall?

Ok, just some random thoughts about some of the responses I recall on this thread.

Thank you @agedman and may the Lord richly reward you

 

[rigz]

May I suggest that "calvinism" and the "doctrines of Grace" are far better at giving answers than what is offered by many who oppose the two views.

Which makes me wonder why Calvinists are tying themselves in knots over such a simple question. Obviously it proves that claiming one thing is way easier than proving/substantiating the claims. I'm certain Mormons view their aberration as the most unadulterated 'truth' Roflmao

However, if one suggests that all answers or better all correct answers are found even in the Scriptures, they are highly mistaken.

Answers in both those systems and even in the Scriptures are given consistent with what is being communicated. What is not communicated is not answered.

You lost me right there

Btw, "Calvinism" isn't always what John Calvin taught or said any more than Joseph Arminus would agree with some of the views taught in his name, today. Some things, certainly, but other things, not.

Very true, but some themes run so deep in some theological systems that one can't in all honesty abandon them while cleaving to whatever is left. A perfect example is Seventh Day Adventism's Investigative Judgement

Should we quote Calvin and you find the quote 'unCalvinist' please say so and state what Calvinism represents on that point

 

[TCassidy]

God commands Adam not to eat. What is His will, that he may eat or not eat?

You will never get a straight answer.

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.

 

[rigz]

Scriptures tells us the way of the transgressor is HARD- Proverbs 13:15

But certainly not harder than avoiding charging God with authorship of sin/evil while at the same time trashing Freewill

 

[TCassidy]

You are AVOIDING the question.

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

 

[rigz]

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

ok. I thought so myself until I ran into some who insist that God's desire was that Adam may eat. I'm certain you've seen that reflected in some of the comments here not to mention quotes of some prominent personalities such as MacArthur and Calvin

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

The only motive was to demonstrate the absurdity of those who claim that God's desire was BOTH for Adam to and not to eat the fruit.

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

I'm glad am not alone in seeing this, but please note the terminologies is a secondary point

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.

Thank you for attempting a definition, it's furthest from clarifying any of the subject matter. What for instance was the particular variety of God's will at play in the subject verse?

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).

Hmmm.. Let's dwell a bit on 'permissive will'.
Before any event or activity is carried out, it must have been thought out, can we say that the thought and intents leading to 'permissive will' events are totally INDEPENDENT of God?

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.

This is your forum sir, do as you wish

 

[TCassidy]

trashing Freewill

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.

 

[rigz]

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

We say God did not have to save nobody, but He saved us anyway. Saying 'did not have to' does not explain WHETHER He did or He did not, and that's why I said he had yet to answer my question.

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

Let me try and summarize your point(s);
1. God never willed the Fall
2. God allowed the Fall
3. God prepared for the Fall

Conclusion:
God never authored the thoughts and intents that precipitated the Fall

Question
Would you therefore agree with me that God does not irresistibly and immutably author every thought and intent of man?

 

[TCassidy]

I ran into some who insist that God's desire was that Adam may eat.

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

The only motive was to demonstrate the absurdity of those who claim that God's desire was BOTH for Adam to and not to eat the fruit.

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

Thank you for attempting a definition, it's furthest from clarifying any of the subject matter.

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.

This is your forum sir, do as you wish.

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?

 

[TCassidy]

Saying 'did not have to' does not explain WHETHER He did or He did not, and that's why I said he had yet to answer my question.

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.

God does not irresistibly and immutably author every thought and intent of man?

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.

 

[rigz]

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.

Thank you @TCassidy,
You have an interesting definition of Freewill. Never heard of it.

Freewill is simply ability to make INDEPENDENT decisions.

 

[rigz]

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.

But @TCassidy, are we not getting lost in definitions and wordplay?
When God tells Moses 'thou shalt not commit adultery', Is He telling him that he may commit adultery or he must not commit adultery?

The contradiction is because God commands Adam against eating while He really wants Adam to eat. That's what the young man is wondering

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'm very cautious of ad hominem so I reserve my response to this.

I will. But thank you for giving me that permission.

It's not permission, just saying that I can smell subtle threats from miles off

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?

Again I have not given you no permission, in fact, if it were down to me, I'd let the thread remain but obviously somebody is more than interested in killing it so... Make my day

 

[TCassidy]

You have an interesting definition of Freewill. Never heard of it.

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.)

Freewill is simply ability to make INDEPENDENT decisions.

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.

 

[TCassidy]

But @TCassidy, are we not getting lost in definitions and wordplay?

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.

When God tells Moses 'thou shalt not commit adultery', Is He telling him that he may commit adultery or he must not commit adultery?

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.

The contradiction is because God commands Adam against eating while He really wants Adam to eat. That's what the young man is wondering

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.

 

[rigz]

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.

This is a minor point, way too minor and had he answered the question without meandering all over, it'd have been clear. Btw, I'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth and not @TCassidy's interpretation

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.

@TCassidy, I simply asked a question

Meanwhile, somebody is persuaded God DESIGNED the Fall, but He is not responsible for it

Was the Fall by design? Yes, of course it was. Did God desire that men sin?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Thank you for stopping by, you remind me of the many who withdrew at the hard sayings of Jesus. I don't blame you

John 6:60 (KJV)
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? ....66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Your illuminati avatar is all I need to see. Good bye. Ignore for you.