If God Never decreed/ordained the Fall...

[Agent47]

Wherefore, in ordaining the Fall of man especially, God had an end most glorious and most just; an end, into our contemplation of which the mention or idea of sin on the part of God can never enter; the very thought of its entrance strikes us with horror!~John Calvin,a Treatise on Eternal Predestination of God
https://www.monergism.com/treatise-eternal-predestination-god-john-calvin

Answering the question helps crack this vocabulary of ordaining. I have quoted John Calvin himself as a reference point lest I be charged with defining other's beliefs.

Please support your response with a brief answer.

 

[JonC]

If God never planned on man falling then God's purpose uncreating would never have been redemptive and Christ would not be "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world".

Logic dictates that if the Provision was made ready before the "need", then the event necessitating the Provision was pre-determined.

 

[Agent47]

If God never planned on man falling then God's purpose uncreating would never have been redemptive and Christ would not be "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world".

Logic dictates that if the Provision was made ready before the "need", then the event necessitating the Provision was pre-determined.

Perfect future knowledge would equally explain provision before the 'need'.

I know it will rain. I plan to and actually carry an umbrella well before it pours. It pours, I use my umbrella. Future knowledge suffices to 'use' the umbrella before it rains. 'Planning' or 'predetermining' the rain is unnecessary.

God knowing well that Adam will sin, He slays the Lamb before creating Adam. 'Planning' or 'predetermining' Adam sinning is only necessary if Adam would not have otherwise sinned. And if Adam would not have otherwise sinned, then God made him sin;He authored Sin.

 

[JonC]

Perfect future knowledge would equally explain provision before the 'need'.

I know it will rain. I plan to and actually carry an umbrella well before it pours. It pours, I use my umbrella. Future knowledge suffices to 'use' the umbrella before it rains. 'Planning' or 'predetermining' the rain is unnecessary.

God knowing well that Adam will sin, He slays the Lamb before creating Adam. 'Planning' or 'predetermining' Adam sinning is only necessary if Adam would not have otherwise sinned. And if Adam would not have otherwise sinned, then God made him sin;He authored Sin.

That is not logically consistent. If God knew that in creating Adam sin would enter the world, and this was not God's intent, then God would have (by your "logic") still have authored evil.

Your only logical position is a full open theistic stance. Then you only have to wrestle with inconsistencies between your view and Scripture (which you can attribute to God's Word in reality being a narrative of the human experience in relationship with God and therefore subjective).

 

[Agent47]

That is not logically consistent. If God knew that in creating Adam sin would enter the world, and this was not God's intent, then God would have (by your "logic") still have authored evil.

God's intent was in creating relational being. This is only accomplished by creating man free to or not to relate to Him. Sin is a consequence of this freedom.

God is not culpable for free decisions of his creature, which is why in His sovereignty he made them free so he does not author their decisions.

I don't like repeating myself but I once told you there is a difference between creating a world where sin is possible, and making one where it is impossible not to Sin.

Your only logical position is a full open theistic stance. Then you only have to wrestle with inconsistencies between your view and Scripture (which you can attribute to God's Word in reality being a narrative of the human experience in relationship with God and therefore subjective).

Open theism has indeterminate future. This is unnecessary; what's there to prevent God from perfect foreknowledge of all possible contingent events?


You need to try harder than stereotyping

 

[JonC]

God's intent was in creating relational being. This is only accomplished by creating man free to or not to relate to Him. Sin is a consequence of this freedom.

God is not culpable for free decisions of his creature, which is why in His sovereignty he made them free so he does not author their decisions.

I don't like repeating myself but I once told you there is a difference between creating a world where sin is possible, and making one where it is impossible not to Sin.

Open theism has indeterminate future. This is unnecessary; what's there to prevent God from perfect foreknowledge of all possible contingent events?


You need to try harder than stereotyping

Here is a test - and a proof of my assertion. Your post concludes with a logical fallacy (at least 2 fallacies, perhaps 3). Can you identify them?

Since they were your words, probably not....right? This is what I mean. Our reasoning is not always objective and the level of subjectivity varies from person to person.

 

[Agent47]

Here is a test - and a proof of my assertion. Your post concludes with a logical fallacy (at least 2 fallacies, perhaps 3). Can you identify them?

Since they were your words, probably not....right? This is what I mean. Our reasoning is not always objective and the level of subjectivity varies from person to person.

God did not ordain nor decree the Fall. Would Adam sin under these circumstances?

 

[JonC]

God's intent was in creating relational being. This is only accomplished by creating man free to or not to relate to Him. Sin is a consequence of this freedom.

God is not culpable for free decisions of his creature, which is why in His sovereignty he made them free so he does not author their decisions.

I don't like repeating myself but I once told you there is a difference between creating a world where sin is possible, and making one where it is impossible not to Sin.

Open theism has indeterminate future. This is unnecessary; what's there to prevent God from perfect foreknowledge of all possible contingent events?


You need to try harder than stereotyping

Whether God has decreed all things that ever come to pass or not, he certainly knew all things before hand. I'm glad we agree here. But if God knew all things beforehand, then he must either approve of them or disapprove of them in "eternity past", prior to Creation. That is, God is either willing that they should be, or he is not willing that they should be.

There is a logical inconsistency in your reasoning that God, not willing that these things should be, willed through Creation that they would certainly occur. You make God the author of evil, I suspect by leaning on your "logic" rather than his Word.

Here are a few more issues - you presuppose definitions in your formulas. For example (only one) you say if it is sin for man then it is sin for God...but you take this as an assumption. There are so many things you assume, but have failed to prove or even address in your "logical conclusions".

 

[JonC]

God did not ordain nor decree the Fall. Would Adam sin under these circumstances?

Before Creation, was God willing, or not willing, that sin enter the world?

 

[Agent47]

Whether God has decreed all things that ever come to pass or not, he certainly knew all things before hand. I'm glad we agree here.

Great

But if God knew all things beforehand, then he must either approve of them or disapprove of them in "eternity past", prior to Creation. That is, God is either willing that they should be, or he is not willing that they should be.

Or simply allow/permit even what He does not approve.

There is a logical inconsistency in your reasoning that God, not willing that these things should be, willed through Creation that they would certainly occur.

You abuse the word logical inconsistency. Demonstrate it.

You make God the author of evil, I suspect by leaning on your "logic" rather than his Word.

Demonstrate it.

Here are a few more issues - you presuppose definitions in your formulas. For example (only one) you say if it is sin for man then it is sin for God...but you take this as an assumption. There are so many things you assume, but have failed to prove or even address in your "logical conclusions".

Imaginary conclusions. Authoring sin is simply authoring Sin. Whoever conceived and executes or causes to be executed an idea is the author.

 

[Agent47]

Before Creation, was God willing, or not willing, that sin enter the world?

Not Willing.


Now answer my question

 

[StefanM]

Not Willing.


Now answer my question

Then why create the conditions in the first place?

If you don't issue any commands, and you don't create any restrictions to violate, it would literally be impossible to sin.

 

[Agent47]

Then why create the conditions in the first place?

If you don't issue any commands, and you don't create any restrictions to violate, it would literally be impossible to sin.

Man did not sin because there were conditions but because He was created relational..free to love God. He chose not to.

If Adam could not have sinned, then it follows ordaining is what caused him to Sin. Why is Adam culpable/judgement-worthy? On what basis does God judge man?

 

[StefanM]

Man did not sin because there were conditions but because He was created relational..free to love God. He chose not to.

According to the Genesis account, there was also a sinful tempting influence in the serpent and the direct opportunity to violate God's command by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Without temptation, without any restrictions, and without any real external reason, why would a man or woman without a sin nature have any desire to choose that?

 

[Agent47]

According to the Genesis account, there was also a sinful tempting influence in the serpent and the direct opportunity to violate God's command by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Without temptation, without any restrictions, and without any real external reason, why would a man or woman without a sin nature have any desire to choose that?

The answer is simple; Adam was FREE. What makes you think FREE beings need any incentive to choose?

Did God will that 200 Americans jump to their deaths in September 11 2001 ?

No? Why did he create conditions for this?

 

[JonC]

Not Willing.


Now answer my question

Let's look at your logic first.

You have said that God knew if he put Adam in the Garden he would sin. But you say God was not willing that Adam sin. Yet you seem to believe God not only planted the Garden, but he also put Adam there knowing for certain he would sin. And now you say God did all of this unwillingly. God acted against his will because, as your conclusion seems to logically unfold, he is enslaved to man. How low a view of God your logic produces .

 

[Agent47]

Let's look at your logic first.

You have said that God knew if he put Adam in the Garden he would sin.

Correct

But you say God was not willing that Adam sin.

Correct

Yet you seem to believe God not only planted the Garden, but he also put Adam there knowing for certain he would sin.

Correct

And now you say God did all of this unwillingly.

Where did I say that?

God acted against his will because, as your conclusion seems to logically unfold, he is enslaved to man.

How so?

How low a view of God your logic produces .

A God of your imagination. You have made false claims for which I should report you only I don't know to whom seeing you are the gods of this forum

 

[JonC]

Correct

Correct

Correct

Where did I say that?

How so?

A God of your imagination. You have made false claims for which I should report you only I don't know to whom seeing you are the gods of this forum

If 1+1=2, and I know that 1+1=2, but I am unwillingly to get 2 as a result then (logically) I would not add 1 and 1.

You are presenting a "logic" bent to your theogical dispositions. You say God knows 1+1 =2, is not willing to get 2 as a result, but does it anyway willingly.

 

[Agent47]

If 1+1=2, and I know that 1+1=2, but I am unwillingly to get 2 as a result then (logically) I would not add 1 and 1.

You are presenting a "logic" bent to your theogical dispositions. You say God knows 1+1 =2, is not willing to get 2 as a result, but does it anyway willingly.

False analogy. Creation produces more than one outcome whereas 1+1 can only produce 2. But mathematics is not for everyone

When will you vote?

 

[StefanM]

The answer is simple; Adam was FREE. What makes you think FREE beings need any incentive to choose?

Did God will that 200 Americans jump to their deaths in September 11 2001 ?

No? Why did he create conditions for this?

In orthodox Christian theologies, people after the fall are understood to have been born with a sinful nature. That removes the freedom not to sin, and it corrupts decisions.

The events of 9/11 are irrelevant.

A being uncorrupted by sin would be in a totally different scenario. If you have no inclination toward sin, why would you choose it?