The Will of God in the Fall of Man

[rigz]

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.

Actually it's more than definitions but bait-and-switch; somehow God instructing Adam that He MUST/MAY not eat of a fruit becomes Adam may eat of the same. Equivocation at work here where may is given two meanings in one sentence

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.

Thank you @TCassidy! On this we are in agreement. May/must not means God's will is do not
So when somebody says God meant they may eat of the fruit, they really mean God meant exact opposite of His instructions!

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.

Agreed. God's Will is simply His intent, purpose, and we can discern this from what He says. Here is the point; if somebody believes that all that comes to pass MUST have been decreed by God, and nothing comes to pass except it was decreed, then the Fall must have been decreed, right?

And if the Fall was decreed, then God's intent was that Adam may eat while His words were 'do not eat'. This is another notion that we have disabused right here namely; God does not DECREE everything that comes to pass, else He is the Author of all that comes to pass including sin and evil

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.

120% true, and we are in agreement sir!

I love your simple and concise analogies.
Point is foreknowledge does not equate to authorship. God foreknew man would fall but He never caused the Fall.

One may reason that if God foreknew there would be evil and He went ahead and created man and angels that He is somewhat responsible for not avoiding it. But who said God is morally responsible for preventing evil? To whom is He responsible?

The free rational agents remain the authors of sin. If the only free agent is God, then He is totally responsible for our actions.

Look sir, I know this is sounding repetitive but the idea that men are not really free given God immutably and irresistibly controls their very thoughts and intents is central to John Calvin theology ( not necessarily Calvinism)

 

[TCassidy]

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

If it was such a minor point, why did you bring it up?

Agedman is a, well, aged man. I am past 70 and agedman is even older than I am. Sometimes gentlemen of our advanced maturity tend to "meander all over" on occasion. Just write it off to our advanced age, and forgive us our lack of laser-like focus.

1 Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren.

@TCassidy, I simply asked a question

And the point of the question? There had to be a reason for you to ask "who has stated unequivocally that God does irresistibly and immutably author every thought and intent of man?"

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

I agree. The fall did not take God by surprise. He had a plan in place. He knew how Adam would respond and God was ready. He had decreed before the foundation of the word that Christ would come and die for the sins of Adam (and the rest of us) and expunge the terrible consequence of Adam's sin.

But because God knew, and had prepared a plan, does not in any way imply He was responsible for Adam's sin.

 

[TCassidy]

Thank you for stopping by, you remind me of the many who withdrew at the hard sayings of Jesus.

You aren't Jesus.

 

[SovereignGrace]

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.

Well then...why post? If they're futile...butt out. No one is twisting your arm, youse nose?

 

[rigz]

If it was such a minor point, why did you bring it up?

Because his response was not clear to me

Agedman is a, well, aged man. I am past 70 and agedman is even older than I am. Sometimes gentlemen of our advanced maturity tend to "meander all over" on occasion. Just write it off to our advanced age, and forgive us our lack of laser-like focus.

1 Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren.

Well, profuse apologies sir, but please understand I have no way of telling your age by your moniker or even avatar

And the point of the question? There had to be a reason for you to ask "who has stated unequivocally that God does irresistibly and immutably author every thought and intent of man?"

Please, when you go back to the OP, I mentioned the meme. There are some who are highly persuaded that God's sovereignty is defined by Him controlling irresistibly every thought and intent of all creatures thereby controlling all their actions and events. I was coming from this point, and I picked the Fall. If God controls all events, then He caused the Fall, and if He caused the Fall, He authored the thoughts and intents leading to the fall precisely at that particular point. The question was how God would author rebellion against Himself and then punish humanity for it all the while warning against it?

I agree. The fall did not take God by surprise. He had a plan in place. He knew how Adam would respond and God was ready. He had decreed before the foundation of the word that Christ would come and die for the sins of Adam (and the rest of us) and expunge the terrible consequence of Adam's sin.

But because God knew, and had prepared a plan, does not in any way imply He was responsible for Adam's sin.

Amen!
Foreknowledge is not equal to Authorship.
Even further God incorporating evil and sin into His plan does not mean He authored it.

There is a quote by Calvin that I quoted. He insisted that not only did God allow the Fall, He caused it. I'm certain this sounds preposterous to you, right?

It is preposterous but there are many who still cling to this flawed thinking sir.

 

[TCassidy]

Actually it's more than definitions but bait-and-switch; somehow God instructing Adam that He MUST/MAY not eat of a fruit becomes Adam may eat of the same. Equivocation at work here where may is given two meanings in one sentence

Not one of my definitions could be construed by an honest man to be "bait-and-switch." I provided exactly what you asked for. A concise definition of the decretive and permissive will of God.

And nowhere did I say or imply that God gave Adam permission to eat. He permitted Adam to follow his own desires rather than following the desires of His Creator.

And in case you were unaware of it "may" has two definitions: may, 1. expressing possibility. "that may be true"
2. expressing permission.

It appears to me you have deliberately conflated or confused the two.

So when somebody says God meant they may eat of the fruit, they really mean God meant exact opposite of His instructions!

Again you are displaying a disappointing lack of sincerity. Nobody. Nobody has made such a statement. Nobody.

if somebody believes that all that comes to pass MUST have been decreed by God

Nobody believes that as you have been told again and again.

And if the Fall was decreed,

It wasn't, as you have been told over and over and over. What was decreed was God's response to the fall.

Look sir, I know this is sounding repetitive but the idea that men are not really free given God immutably and irresistibly controls their very thoughts and intents is central to John Calvin theology

Yes, your willing mischaracterization is getting repetitive. Nobody has said or suggested God "irresistibly controls their very thoughts and intents" and such has absolutely nothing at all to do with Calvin or anyone else.

So, as nothing useful is forthcoming. This thread is closed.

(I tried. I really did.)