The Will of God in the Fall of Man

[rigz]

You are asking me things that I am not entirely sure of, as this is in regards to God's mind. It is via my studying that I see God as having a permissive will. But I have old furniture with me as I am ~ 3 years removed from being in the free will camp. It is a laborious task of trying to study and grasp God's word. But a prosperous endeavor at that. So I do think it was God's permissive will they broke, but I could be wrong.

I am always open to correction.

I am simply asking you to DEFINE your own vocabularies 'permissive will' and 'decretive will'

 

[rigz]

Very good.


Permissive will=Allows sin to be part of His plan...decretive will. God allowed(permissive) Adam to sin to bring Christ as the Redeemer of His chosen ppl.
Decretive will=God uses unregenerate ppl to crucify our Lord to propitiate God, to appease His wrath, so that He can justify the ungodly. To shed His blood to atone for...blot out the sins of those He came to die in their stead for.


Howso?


The crucifixion? Yes it was decreed...decretive will of God at work.

you have yet to DEFINE permissive vs decretive will.

 

[rigz]

God certainly allowed mankind to fall, but to pretend to understand it and lay it to God's charge is folly.

you may wish to contrast CREATION with the FALL as far as 'allowing' is concerned.

Did God 'allow' creation to be?
Did He decree/ordain creation?

Now substitute creation with the fall and answer those questions

 

[rigz]

In regards to either will, sin plays a part in them. If God decretively willed Adam to eat, sin came about. If He permissively decreed him to eat, sin came about.

you are overusing vocabularies you shy off from defining, and this makes it difficult if not impossible to engage you

 

[SovereignGrace]

you have yet to DEFINE permissive vs decretive will.

Oh but I did...

--Permissive will=Allows sin to be part of His plan...decretive will. God allowed(permissive) Adam to sin to bring Christ as the Redeemer of His chosen ppl.
--Decretive will=God uses unregenerate ppl to crucify our Lord to propitiate God, to appease His wrath, so that He can justify the ungodly. To shed His blood to atone for...blot out the sins of those He came to die in their stead for.

Permissive will...that which God has allowed to come about
Decretive will...that which he decrees, He actively brings about

I am not dogmatic about Him having two wills at work in His plan, but, as of now, that is where I am.

I think it was Piper who said permissive will is like God stepping aside and doing nothing to stop it, whereas, decretive will is Him pushing His will to accomplish it.

 

[SovereignGrace]

you are overusing vocabularies you shy off from defining, and this makes it difficult if not impossible to engage you

I have been defining these two for you, I guess I am just poorly explaining them. Sorry. Forgive me.

 

[JonC]

I have no idea what 'within or outside of God's providence' means to you, but I'm interested in whether God WANTED Adam to eat the fruit.

What I mean by within or outside of God's Providence is in accord or in opposition to God's overall plan for creation as an expression of and purpose for His glory. When you ask whether or not God "wanted" Adam to eat the fruit, I think that we may be approaching anthropomorphic language. Was the Fall by design? Yes, of course it was. Did God desire that men sin? No, of course not. Did God cause men to sin against His own will? No, of course not. You see, we cannot go down the questions until we first determine the reason or purpose for Creation. My answer is the glorification of God. From there, was the Fall a part of God's plan? To answer that all we need to do is ask if God is glorified through redemption in a manner not possible without the Fall. My answer is yes. We have to decide whether our view will have God or man at its center. The questions and answers depend on how we address that issue.

 

[Iconoclast]

If this is the same article, AWP wrote something that seems very close to what I am trying to parlay.

"The decrees of God relate to all future things without exception; whatever is done in time, was foreordained before time began. God’s purpose was concerned with everything, whether great or small, whether good or evil. But with reference to the latter we must be careful to state that while God is the Orderer and Controller of sin, He is not the Author of it in the same way that He is the Author of good. Sin could not proceed from a Holy God by positive and direct creation, but only by decretive permission and negative action. God’s decree, as comprehensive as His government, extends to all creatures and events. It was concerned about our life and death; about our state in time, and our state in eternity. As God works all things after the counsel of His own will, we learn from His works what His counsel is (was), as we judge an architect’s plan by inspecting the building erected under his direction."

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/attributes_online.html#chapter2

Is this the same article, Brother Iconoclast?

It is not quite the same but it is good

 

[rigz]

Permissive will...that which God has allowed to come about
Decretive will...that which he decrees, He actively brings about

I am not dogmatic about Him having two wills at work in His plan, but, as of now, that is where I am.

I think it was Piper who said permissive will is like God stepping aside and doing nothing to stop it, whereas, decretive will is Him pushing His will to accomplish it.

You know where you lose me is because none of your definitions/distinctions can answer the young man in the OP.

Did God will that Adam eat of the fruit He expressly forbade himfrom eating?

 

[rigz]

What I mean by within or outside of God's Providence is in accord or in opposition to God's overall plan for creation as an expression of and purpose for His glory. When you ask whether or not God "wanted" Adam to eat the fruit, I think that we may be approaching anthropomorphic language. Was the Fall by design? Yes, of course it was. Did God desire that men sin? No, of course not. Did God cause men to sin against His own will? No, of course not. You see, we cannot go down the questions until we first determine the reason or purpose for Creation. My answer is the glorification of God. From there, was the Fall a part of God's plan? To answer that all we need to do is ask if God is glorified through redemption in a manner not possible without the Fall. My answer is yes. We have to decide whether our view will have God or man at its center. The questions and answers depend on how we address that issue.

Can you smell your own contradiction or should I lay it bare for you?
If the Fall was by Design, who designed it? Man or God? God of course!

So God DESIGNS something He does not DESIRE
What's more, He is not RESPONSIBLE for His DESIGN

 

[SovereignGrace]

You know where you lose me is because none of your definitions/distinctions can answer the young man in the OP.

Did God will that Adam eat of the fruit He expressly forbade himfrom eating?

No. He had an ability to either chose to eat it or not. He chose foolishly.

Yet, if they had not choosen to do this, then you or I would not be here. They did not even know they were naked. They had no desire to procreate in their upright state, in my opinion. So, then what? No cross. No glory for God in the redemption of man. Remember, God made man for His glory, to praise Him. Ppl not saved from sin do not praise Him.

 

[rigz]

I have been defining these two for you, I guess I am just poorly explaining them. Sorry. Forgive me.

Thank you for trying. I believe God's Will is no different from man's will, or any will for that matter. Will is not an esoteric mystical thing; it simply is INTENT,PURPOSE...

If you intend to visit Mars, that's your will. So when God commands Adam not to eat of that particular fruit, His Will is exactly that. When He commands us to worship no other God, His will is that we have no other God. When He commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves, this is His Will.

Now, let's go back to Eden. God commands Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit. What is His will, that Adam eat or not eat the fruit?

 

[rigz]

No. He had an ability to either chose to eat it or not. He chose foolishly.

Yet, if they had not choosen to do this, then you or I would not be here. They did not even know they were naked. They had no desire to procreate in their upright state, in my opinion. So, then what? No cross. No glory for God in the redemption of man. Remember, God made man for His glory, to praise Him. Ppl not saved from sin do not praise Him.

I love that tale of 'glory in the redemption of man' but before I get to that...

What is your point?
God's will is that Adam may not eat while at the same time He wills that he must eat/fall and thereby all men may sin and fall short of His glory so He may be glorified in saving a few of those who fell?

Back to the 'glory on redemption' narrative...
Is God in any way glorified in damnation of sinners eternally in hell as much as He is glorified in saving the sinners?

 

[tyndale1946]

Thank you for trying. I believe God's Will is no different from man's will, or any will for that matter. Will is not an esoteric mystical thing; it simply is INTENT,PURPOSE...

If you intend to visit Mars, that's your will. So when God commands Adam not to eat of that particular fruit, His Will is exactly that. When He commands us to worship no other God, His will is that we have no other God. When He commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves, this is His Will.

Now, let's go back to Eden. God commands Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit. What is His will, that Adam eat or not eat the fruit?

This is an interesting lively discussion and I have a question and this is purely speculation if this order of events did not take place would Adam have eaten of the forbidden fruit?... The remedy was already in place!... Brother Glen

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Thank you for trying. I believe God's Will is no different from man's will, or any will for that matter. Will is not an esoteric mystical thing; it simply is INTENT,PURPOSE...

You're wrong here, in my opinion, mon ami. God is nothing like man. Man is self-deficient, God is self-sufficient. He did not need man to exist, but man needs God to exist. I think the same can be said for His will(s). If He truly wills to do something, it comes to pass. If we will to do something, it may not happen.

If you intend to visit Mars, that's your will.

But I may never get there. If God truly wills something to happen, it happens.

So when God commands Adam not to eat of that particular fruit, His Will is exactly that.

He told him not to eat, and when he did, he would die. He did not strictly forbid him, but warned him of the consequences. I am now beginning to see one will in God, I think. He never forced him to eat of that tree, Adam freely chose and paid dearly for that which he chose.

When He commands us to worship no other God, His will is that we have no other God.

Yet, it is due to man's corrupted heart, that which was passed down from the first Adam, that causes them to serve other gods. Left in their unregenerate state, they serve another god, Satan...lower case 'g'.

When He commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves, this is His Will.

And ppl's corrupted hearts cause many to not love their neighbors as themselves. Remember, the bible is written to believers and not unbelievers. See 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Romans 8:7.

Now, let's go back to Eden. God commands Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit. What is His will, that Adam eat or not eat the fruit?

Adam was warned but not strictly forbidden. If God did not desire for him to eat of it, He would not have placed it there to begin with.

 

[rigz]

You're wrong here, in my opinion, mon ami. God is nothing like man. Man is self-deficient, God is self-sufficient. He did not need man to exist, but man needs God to exist. I think the same can be said for His will(s). If He truly wills to do something, it comes to pass. If we will to do something, it may not happen.

If He 'truly wills to do...'
Will transcends actions,activities and events
Your intent is your will, whether you have the ability to effect it or not does not diminish the fact that that is your will

But I may never get there. If God truly wills something to happen, it happens.

This is true but hopelessly irrelevant. God has the ability to do everything, but this is not to mean that 'everything' is God's will

He told him not to eat, and when he did, he would die. He did not strictly forbid him, but warned him of the consequences. I am now beginning to see one will in God, I think. He never forced him to eat of that tree, Adam freely chose and paid dearly for that which he chose.

Exactly what is 'strictly forbid'?
Does God 'strictly forbid' a man from cheating on his wife, or does He just warn him of the consequences?
Can one conclude that that God's permissive will for an adulterer is adultery?

Adam was warned but not strictly forbidden. If God did not desire for him to eat of it, He would not have placed it there to begin with.

So God DESIRED that Adam eat of the fruit!
Thank you for your candid admission. But then He goes on and punishes Adam for doing exactly what He desired

 

[JonC]

Can you smell your own contradiction or should I lay it bare for you?
If the Fall was by Design, who designed it? Man or God? God of course!

So God DESIGNS something He does not DESIRE
What's more, He is not RESPONSIBLE for His DESIGN

I thought you would understand it as a contradiction, but that doesn't make it so. The difference is perspective. If you approach it from a man-centered doctrine then it is a contradiction. But if you can keep to a doctrine focused on God's glory then you may escape that error.

And, of course, for some of us your argument is obviously one of constructing a strawman. And by "us" I don't mean Calvinists. I mean your objection is proven wrong by common experience.

I enjoy hunting. Last year I wanted to take a deer. I desired not only the hunt, but also the meat. At the same time I do not desire to cause animals pain. I do not desire to cause death. In one sense I do not desire to kill the deer, but in another I do. One is cruelty and the other is not, but the same action occurs. And there is no contradiction at all (I know, you don't understand and that's alright).


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

 

[SovereignGrace]

I love that tale of 'glory in the redemption of man' but before I get to that...

Okay...

What is your point?

On top of my head? Oh wait, that's the answer to 'Where is my point'?
My point? No fall, no redemption from sin. No redemption from sin, no praise from man in saving them. God made man for His glory. He will get praise from them.

I don't remember Adam praising God for Him making him, do you? I am going to have to read this again...been a few days since I read the Garden scene. Adam have continual fellowship with God, but I don't think he worshipped Him. I could be wrong, but I don't remember him worshipping God. He may have, but it's not recorded in the bible, iirc.

God's will is that Adam may not eat while at the same time He wills that he must eat/fall and thereby all men may sin and fall short of His glory so He may be glorified in saving a few of those who fell?

God told him he could freely eat of any tree in the Garden. We can read The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.[Genesis 3:15-17] He told he must not eat of it because when he did, he'd die. He was warned of the consequences, but not strictly forbidden.

Back to the 'glory on redemption' narrative...
Is God in any way glorified in damnation of sinners eternally in hell as much as He is glorified in saving the sinners?

Yes. Here's a link to read..

http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/03/10/god-glorified-in-destruction-of-sinners/

Also, read Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the hands of an angry God."

Also remember, those who perish in their sins were God's enemies. God's enemies must be destroyed.

 

[rigz]

I thought you would understand it as a contradiction, but that doesn't make it so. The difference is perspective. If you approach it from a man-centered doctrine then it is a contradiction. But if you can keep to a doctrine focused on God's glory then you may escape that error.

So it is my fault for calling out your contradictions? Interesting.

And, of course, for some of us your argument is obviously one of constructing a strawman. And by "us" I don't mean Calvinists. I mean your objection is proven wrong by common experience.

Calling it strawman does not make it so. Some of us can readily and easily see your 'man-centered' vs 'doctrine focused on God's glory' as a strawman. You don't stop at strawmen, you stoop lower and accuse me of bankruptcy of comprehension

I enjoy hunting. Last year I wanted to take a deer. I desired not only the hunt, but also the meat. At the same time I do not desire to cause animals pain. I do not desire to cause death. In one sense I do not desire to kill the deer, but in another I do. And there is no contradiction at all (I know, you don't understand).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

Extremely irrelevant analogy. Your object is hunting and meat. Pain and death are means to these. The ONLY means. By desiring hunting and meat, you desire pain and death for the animal.

To make more sense, think about you being outraged by the very fact that the animal experiences pain and dies out of the injuries you inflict on it on your way to game meat and hunting thrill (I know, you don't understand)

 

[rigz]

Okay...


On top of my head? Oh wait, that's the answer to 'Where is my point'?
My point? No fall, no redemption from sin. No redemption from sin, no praise from man in saving them. God made man for His glory. He will get praise from them.

God made man for some purpose that could NEVER be realized in the work He defines as VERY GOOD? Smh

I don't remember Adam praising God for Him making him, do you? I am going to have to read this again...been a few days since I read the Garden scene. Adam have continual fellowship with God, but I don't think he worshipped Him. I could be wrong, but I don't remember him worshipping God. He may have, but it's not recorded in the bible, iirc.

And because it is not recorded you grab artistic liberty to imagine he didn't ? Arguments from silence are notoriously unreliable.

God told him he could freely eat of any tree in the Garden. We can read The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.[Genesis 3:15-17] He told he must not eat of it because when he did, he'd die. He was warned of the consequences, but not strictly forbidden.

And the question was, exactly what is 'strictly forbidden'?

Yes. Here's a link to read..

http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/03/10/god-glorified-in-destruction-of-sinners/

Also, read Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the hands of an angry God."

So, why don't you remain a sinner and glorify God as you are tormented in hell?Laugh
And why is God angry in sinners who glorify him by being hell fodder?

Also remember, those who perish in their sins were God's enemies. God's enemies must be destroyed.

Yeah right, God is glorified in their destruction, I wonder why you deny Him glory by running away from your sins. Or is God better glorified in saving you from sins?

See how nonsensical you make God and salvation?
Salvation glorifies Him just as much as damnation. Man ought to be indifferent to either seeing both glorify God