If God Never decreed/ordained the Fall...

[Agent47]

I do not find your definition of "shouting" to be logical. The reason is that when I look up the word it seems to carry an emotional attachment that is not definitively known through written correspondence unless it is expressed otherwise (e.g., the man shouted "Get off my lawn").

What you probably mean to say is that I have not demonstrated why your position is not logical. I believe I have, but I will try once again.

If I know with a certainty that mixing bleach and ammonia will result in the production chloramines, and I am not willing that these toxic gasses be produced, then it is not logical that I will willingly mix bleach and ammonia. Does this mean that I will not mix the chemicals? Yes. Absolutely every time. Perhaps a situation may arise when these toxic gasses will benefit my purpose (it happen on an episode of MacGyver once). But then it cannot be said I was unwilling that these gases be produced.

You have stated that God knew, for certainty, that if Adam was put in the Garden he would sin. You seem to believe Scripture when it is said that God created Adam, and planted a Garden, and put Adam in this Garden where you insist God knew Adam would sin. Yet you seem to divorce these two things.

My conclusion is that if 1+x=y and you do are not willing to come up with the number 2 then you will not assign to x the value "1" (not if you can do simple math, anyway). My assertion is that your conclusion/reasoning is not logical and is, in fact, a victim of it's own error.

What you have to prove is that God, knowing for certain that Adam+Garden=Sin, creates the equation Adam+Garden yet is unwilling that Sin be the result.

.

Thoroughly enjoying slideshows, but have you voted?

 

[JonC]

Thoroughly enjoying slideshows, but have you voted?

I have told you why your conclusion is not logical, and have demonstrated the flaw in your logic. Your appropriate recourse is to prove your logic (instead of offering fallacies).

(The "poll" is flawed, BTW, and that's why I didn't answer. It presents supposed conclusions to a hypothetical of God's own mind. While I like Lewis Carroll, I don't want him in my theology.)

But please, it is your turn.

1+1=2. I know this. But I am not willing that 2 be the product of the addition. So I willingly add 1 and 1 and unwillingly get 2. Explain your logic here.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

The important point on this issue is that Adam freely chose to sin and disobey God, as God is not the author of sin and evil!
He made the provision to handl the Fall in the Cross of Jesus before that event even happened!

 

[Agent47]

I have told you why your conclusion is not logical, and have demonstrated the flaw in your logic. Your appropriate recourse is to prove your logic (instead of offering fallacies).

You have done neither.

I note desperate attempts to 'prove' that God inventing and causing man to Sin is as bad as God creating a world where sin is possible, and permitting/allowing/not preventing it from happening.

Scripture-wise and logically, God is not responsible for preventing men from committing evil of their own accord. So permitting or not preventing evil or sin does not make Him the author.

In short, preventing evil is not an absolute moral imperative.

Now, please vote. Or engage in more sideshows...tells me more actually than your voting

 

[Agent47]

The important point on this issue is that Adam freely chose to sin and disobey God, as God is not the author of sin and evil!
He made the provision to handl the Fall in the Cross of Jesus before that event even happened!

Vote,defend your choice, then engage in sideshows

 

[JonC]

You have done neither.

I note desperate attempts to 'prove' that God inventing and causing man to Sin is as bad as God creating a world where sin is possible, and permitting/allowing/not preventing it from happening.

Scripture-wise and logically, God is not responsible for preventing men from committing evil of their own accord. So permitting or not preventing evil or sin does not make Him the author.

In short, preventing evil is not an absolute moral imperative.

Now, please vote. Or engage in more sideshows...tells me more actually than your voting

No side show at all. There is no answer. "Impossible to know" is also no answer because the question itself is invalid. It is like saying, hypothetically, if 1+1 does not equal 2, then does it equal 3,4 or 5. The poll itself reflects poor logic.

Again, no side show at all. I am asking you to defend your "logic". I understand you do not accept my explanation of why it is flawed, and I can accept that - BUT it is not logical for you to simply say "nope, you are wrong" as if we were children in the back seat teasing each other.

I made an assertion. I asserted that your logic is flawed because you affirm that God knew for certain that Adam would sin in the Garden, you affirm that knowing this God put Adam in the Garden, you indicate God acted willingly, yet you inconsistently claim that God was unwilling that Adam sin. This is not logic, it is theological presupposition.

And until the time comes when you can address what I have presented, it stands. You can hide from the conclusion, but it is still there. I "proved" your logic inconsistent. And it stands until you show otherwise.

 

[Agent47]

I made an assertion. I asserted that your logic is flawed because you affirm that God knew for certain that Adam would sin in the Garden, you affirm that knowing this God put Adam in the Garden, you indicate God acted willingly, yet you inconsistently claim that God was unwilling that Adam sin. This is not logic, it is theological presupposition

Slideshows.

How is it inconsistent?
It is only inconsistent if you assume God not willing something means it can't/must not occur.

'If God does not Will, it can't happen.
If it happens,God willed it'
Manufactured circular reasoning cum 'logic'

Vote

 

[Yeshua1]

Slideshows.

How is it inconsistent?
It is only inconsistent if you assume God not willing something means it can't/must not occur.

'If God does not Will, it can't happen.
If it happens,God willed it'
Manufactured circular reasoning cum 'logic'

Vote

God allowed the Fal lto happen, as he had already detrmined the Cross o fChrist would be the way to brining the end greater glory and good out from it!

 

[JonC]

Slideshows.

How is it inconsistent?
It is only inconsistent if you assume God not willing something means it can't/must not occur.

'If God does not Will, it can't happen.
If it happens,God willed it'
Manufactured circular reasoning cum 'logic'

Vote

I take your reply to mean you cannot defend your reasoning so you make a show of my belief none of the poll choices are adequate.

But, on the chance you find the intellectual integrity to substantiate your claims, I will ask once again.

You affirm that God knew for certain that Adam, when placed in the Garden, would sin. You confirm that God knew this before putting Adam in the Garden. And you confirm that God, knowing Adam would sin, planted the Garden (with that tree), took Adam and put Adam there (Adam didn't find it himself), yet God was not willing for Adam to sin. I think your logic is inconsistent. Can you defend your logic?

If I am unwilling for water to come out of the tap, and I know for certain that by pulling the handle water will flow, then my pulling the handle is a logical impossibility. Either there is a greater motive or reason (in which case I am willing to allow for water as it satisfies my greater desire) or I will never pull the handle.

 

[Agent47]

I take your reply to mean you cannot defend your reasoning so you make a show of my belief none of the poll choices are adequate.

But, on the chance you find the intellectual integrity to substantiate your claims, I will ask once again.

You affirm that God knew for certain that Adam, when placed in the Garden, would sin. You confirm that God knew this before putting Adam in the Garden. And you confirm that God, knowing Adam would sin, planted the Garden (with that tree), took Adam and put Adam there (Adam didn't find it himself), yet God was not willing for Adam to sin. I think your logic is inconsistent. Can you defend your logic?

If I am unwilling for water to come out of the tap, and I know for certain that by pulling the handle water will flow, then my pulling the handle is a logical impossibility. Either there is a greater motive or reason (in which case I am willing to allow for water as it satisfies my greater desire) or I will never pull the handle.

Side shows.
Umpteenth analogy. Why not deal with the actual event?

Give your 'adequate' answer outside the poll. Do I need to repeat the question?

 

[Agent47]

God allowed the Fal lto happen, as he had already detrmined the Cross o fChrist would be the way to brining the end greater glory and good out from it!

Vote

 

[JonC]

Side shows.
Umpteenth analogy. Why not deal with the actual event?

Give your answer outside the poll. Do I need to repeat the question?

Sure. If God never decreed (actively willed)/ordained (permissively willed) that the Fall occur then it would be impossible that God would have created man knowing this would be the result. There are two logical conclusions. Either God did not know (Open Theism) or God did not create man (Atheism).

Now back to you error. Have you worked out a defense yet?

 

[Agent47]

Sure. If God never decreed (actively willed)/ordained (permissively willed) that the Fall occur then it would be impossible that God would have created man knowing this would be the result.

Clarify. Did God decree or permit the Fall?

The dizzying frequency with which these terms are interchanged amuses me hence my asking. Calvin (not you @JonC ) reckons it was decreed as per your definition. He was categorical that mere permission was fiction.

 

[Yeshua1]

Clarify. Did God decree or permit the Fall?

The dizzying frequency with which these terms are interchanged amuses me hence my asking. Calvin (not you @JonC ) reckons it was decreed as per your definition.

Tha is a debate among the calvinists, but either answer would fit the biblical narrative!

 

[Agent47]

Tha is a debate among the calvinists, but either answer would fit the biblical narrative!

I don't care for Calvinists and @JonC is not a Calvinist.

Vote, substantiate, then vent

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't care for Calvinists and @JonC is not a Calvinist.

Vote, substantiate, then vent

Do you see Calvinists as being Christians then?

 

[Agent47]

Do you see Calvinists as being Christians then?

Yes. Do you see Arminians as Christians?

 

[Yeshua1]

Vote

I cannot, as thereis no way the Fall was not determined/allowed by God, so Adam woul always have fell!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. Do you see Arminians as Christians?

Yes, just Christians confused on Sotierology!

 

[Agent47]

I cannot, as thereis no way the Fall was not determined/allowed by God, so Adam woul always have fell!

What if