Partial LA?

[His clay]

Reductionism fallacy, for the issues aren't that simple. False dichotomy fallacy: Have you thought about option #3?

Since no one adheres to Adam being forced to sin, then why bring it up? It's a moot point that no one holds. Libertarian freedom is not the answer, for it violates too much scripture.

Did you ready my post about the causal conflation fallacy?

*read (edit time has expired) Final sentence typo.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Reductionism fallacy, for the issues aren't that simple. False dichotomy fallacy: Have you thought about option #3?

Since no one adheres to Adam being forced to sin, then why bring it up? It's a moot point that no one holds. Libertarian freedom is not the answer, for it violates too much scripture.

Did you ready my post about the causal conflation fallacy?

For the record, please answer, did Adam have a free-will (power of contrary choice) or not? This is crucial to know. To brush it under the rug is not the answer. For God to allow or cause the Fall is crucial, right?

Adam had free will. He possessed the ability to make choices without coercion. Unlike us today, who are enslaved by sin, Adam was not a slave to sin. He could choose to sin not to sin freely. Adam had an unfallen nature. When God created Adam, he was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). His nature was not corrupted by sin. He was created with the ability to both sin and not sin. Unlike us, who are born with a sin nature, Adam was not compelled or impelled by any sin nature. His sinlessness was not merely a condition; it was the act of his being.

Christ's humanity: The nature of Christ is a topic of theological discussion. Some argue that for Christ to identify with fallen humanity, He needed to have a fallen human nature. Others maintain that Christ assumed an unfallen nature like Adam’s before the fall. He lived a holy life in sinless humanity, yet fully identified with us. The debate centers on whether Christ’s nature was preserved from sin or whether He took on a fallen nature to redeem us from where we actually are.

In summary, Adam had both free will and an unfallen nature, allowing him to make choices without being coerced. Christ’s nature, too, is a complex topic, but it is essential to understand His identification with fallen humanity while maintaining His sinlessness.​

 

[His clay]

For the record, please answer, did Adam have a free-will (power of contrary choice) or not? This is crucial to know. To brush it under the rug is not the answer. For God to allow or cause the Fall is crucial, right?

Adam had free will. He possessed the ability to make choices without coercion. Unlike us today, who are enslaved by sin, Adam was not a slave to sin. He could choose to sin not to sin freely. Adam had an unfallen nature. When God created Adam, he was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). His nature was not corrupted by sin. He was created with the ability to both sin and not sin. Unlike us, who are born with a sin nature, Adam was not compelled or impelled by any sin nature. His sinlessness was not merely a condition; it was the act of his being.

Christ's humanity: The nature of Christ is a topic of theological discussion. Some argue that for Christ to identify with fallen humanity, He needed to have a fallen human nature. Others maintain that Christ assumed an unfallen nature like Adam’s before the fall. He lived a holy life in sinless humanity, yet fully identified with us. The debate centers on whether Christ’s nature was preserved from sin or whether He took on a fallen nature to redeem us from where we actually are.

In summary, Adam had both free will and an unfallen nature, allowing him to make choices without being coerced. Christ’s nature, too, is a complex topic, but it is essential to understand His identification with fallen humanity while maintaining His sinlessness.​

A few simple observations are in order.

1. Genesis 1:31 is your only scripture reference. Your main point in bringing up this reference is God's proclamation "very good," which you assume is moral in nature rather than other possibilities. I won't debate your use of the moral sense of the word, since I also hold that God created an unfallen creation. The curse had not taken effect. Genesis 3 and the fall comes after Genesis 1 & 2. However, I do wish to inform you that an exegetical case can be made that the "very good" may very well not be moral in nature. It may very well refer to a different type of goodness.
2. You never exegetically argue from the Bible for your philosophical position regarding the "power of contrary choice." I hold to a both/and view of how philosophy intersects with the Bible. However, there is a lot of philosophy that is only (as Scott Oliphint stated one time) "well articulated unbelief." With regards to pagan philosophy, I hold to Colossians 2:8 which says, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ." With the negative stated, the positive can be made more clear. Philosophy contains at least three main areas: (1) metaphysics, (2) epistemology, and (3) ethics/values. The Bible does address each of these categories in different places; hence, I hold to a biblical philosophy.
3. Perhaps it was oversight on your part, or maybe it was due to ignorance of the issues and/or terminology involved . . . regardless, you mistakenly assume that I had not answered your question when I already did. Hence, your statement, "brush it under the rug," is simply mistaken. We all make mistakes at times, so this is really no big deal, and I don't take offense at your false accusation. Rather, I'll simply point out where I already answered your question. I already stated, "Libertarian freedom is not the answer, for it violates too much scripture." (post#139) Another name for libertarian freedom is contra-causal freedom, which entails the "power of contrary choice." Libertarian freedom would call it the ability to do otherwise. Various names have been used throughout history; the substance is basically the same while the semantics may differ.
   1. Not only did I already answer within the thread, but I also already answered with a link that I provided, which apparently, you failed to read. https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/responsibility-and-causation.55/
   2. In the link I outline two different competing views of human freedom, choice-making, and responsibility. The final portion outlines the basics of the causal conflation fallacy. Again, if you have not read it yet, then please try to get yourself up to speed. Don't shirk your responsibility to read what others write. (James 1:19)
4. Your post simply assumes your philosophical stance on choice-making, freedom, and coercion. The post does not argue for it, and no scripture is referenced in that regard. Yes, Adam and Eve made choices. Yes, they were made in the image of God. Yes, God gave them the dominion mandate. All are agreed that they were not coerced. However, libertarian freedom, contra-causal freedom, the liberty of indifference, etc. . . . Whatever name one calls it, these various theological points taken from Genesis do not support the version of choice-making, freedom, coercion, and responsibility which is intrinsic to libertarian freedom. To assume that because Adam and Eve made choices that only libertarian freedom is on the table is to radically miss another option and perpetuate the false dichotomy you have demonstrated previously. Again, I already provided a link where I point to an alternate view (hence the false dichotomy fallacy you have been tripping over).
5. Consistency is going to be a major problem in your view. I'll take some space to explain. The classic Arminian position endorses both the bondage of the will due to depravity, and it endorses preveniant grace that gives the person the ability to do otherwise. In short (assuming that one has read my twice linked distinction between lib freedom and compat freedom), the Arminian position functions off of a blatant equivocation on the definition of the will and human freedom. On one hand it holds to compat freedom when speaking of depravity, but then equivocates to lib freedom when speaking of conversion. This is nearly the same issue that Ladodgers6 faces. On one hand lib freedom is endorsed with respect to the fall, but then compat freedom is endorsed later when dealing with human depravity. This equivocation results in a severe lack of consistency, and thusly your descriptions end up fighting your own theology. Example: your view of coercion with regards to Adam, if consistent, means that your view of depravity creates a coercion and thusly a non-responsible group of people. Adam can be held responsible, according to lib freedom, but if your position is consistent, then the rest of humanity cannot be held responsible because of coerced non-responsible depravity. Again, this is a consistency issue. To the extent that you are not consistent, then you will not see my point here. Personally, I hold to compat freedom consistently, and I think that lib freedom is utter nonsense.

(post #1 of 2)

 

[His clay]

For the record, please answer, did Adam have a free-will (power of contrary choice) or not? This is crucial to know. To brush it under the rug is not the answer. For God to allow or cause the Fall is crucial, right?

Adam had free will. He possessed the ability to make choices without coercion. Unlike us today, who are enslaved by sin, Adam was not a slave to sin. He could choose to sin not to sin freely. Adam had an unfallen nature. When God created Adam, he was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). His nature was not corrupted by sin. He was created with the ability to both sin and not sin. Unlike us, who are born with a sin nature, Adam was not compelled or impelled by any sin nature. His sinlessness was not merely a condition; it was the act of his being.

Christ's humanity: The nature of Christ is a topic of theological discussion. Some argue that for Christ to identify with fallen humanity, He needed to have a fallen human nature. Others maintain that Christ assumed an unfallen nature like Adam’s before the fall. He lived a holy life in sinless humanity, yet fully identified with us. The debate centers on whether Christ’s nature was preserved from sin or whether He took on a fallen nature to redeem us from where we actually are.

In summary, Adam had both free will and an unfallen nature, allowing him to make choices without being coerced. Christ’s nature, too, is a complex topic, but it is essential to understand His identification with fallen humanity while maintaining His sinlessness.​

(post #2 of 2)

• The idea of Adam not having a sin nature is endorsed by all, but this does not lead to libertarian freedom. Such a move would be a non-sequitur fallacy. Compat freedom does not require depravity to work; it only requires that human beings have a causal reason for the choices that they make. Hence, compat freedom works just fine in the garden. Adam and Eve chose because they had internal causal reasons for the choices that they made. They could not have done otherwise, but this in no way alleviates their responsibility for they acted in accord with their highest preference, they did what they wanted to do, thusly they were not coerced in any way (in the compat freedom view of coercion). They also could not have done otherwise than what God knew they would do. God's self-sufficient, perfect knowledge means that they could not have done otherwise than the true reality that God knows.
• A tough point is that God "caused" the fall. All Christians endorse this. The Open Theist may deny this, but then when you look at it from their theology's point of view, God took the risk of people falling into sin, but He caused creation anyway. Hence, even in Open Theism, God still caused creation to happen, knowing the risk He was taking. The Arminian endorses that God knew with absolute, unalterable certainty that sin would necessarily come about if He created, and God created anyway. The Calvinist, who sees God's holy decree over all things, also sees God's creation as the initial cause, apart from which nothing would exist. God's knowledge in the act of creation (after all, God uses His mind as He creates. It's called design.) leads to the necessary conclusion that He is a remote cause of the fall. However, no one says that God is an immediate cause of sin. No one says that God sinned in the act of creating. No one says that God is morally culpable for Adam and Eve's sin. Again, I wrote about the causal conflation fallacy in the link provided. The different types of causation CANNOT be ignored. The difference of type of causation literally means everything, and to conflate the difference of type down to one leads to a whole host of equivocation fallacies and category errors.
• My final observation concerns your approach. Internet appearances can be deceiving, so I ask an important question. It seems like you are really concerned about this issue. Why are you so concerned about this issue? Your approach communicates a type of urgency and aggressiveness. Now maybe I'm missreading, but you seem a tad overly concerned about this issue.

 

[Ladodgers6]

(post #2 of 2)

• The idea of Adam not having a sin nature is endorsed by all, but this does not lead to libertarian freedom. Such a move would be a non-sequitur fallacy. Compat freedom does not require depravity to work; it only requires that human beings have a causal reason for the choices that they make. Hence, compat freedom works just fine in the garden. Adam and Eve chose because they had internal causal reasons for the choices that they made. They could not have done otherwise, but this in no way alleviates their responsibility for they acted in accord with their highest preference, they did what they wanted to do, thusly they were not coerced in any way (in the compat freedom view of coercion). They also could not have done otherwise than what God knew they would do. God's self-sufficient, perfect knowledge means that they could not have done otherwise than the true reality that God knows.

Well, then the questions begs to be asked again. Did God cause Adam to fall? The above comments to do answer this question. It comes down to either Adam sinned by his own free-will (power of contrary choice) or he was coerced to sin. There is a Hyper-Calvinist view and a Classical View here. In the Hyper-Calvinist view there's no human action involved. In the Classical Calvinist view sin enters the world through One man's actions. This is not non-sequitur fallacy. Calvin holds to the latter and teaches that Adam did have libertarian Free-Will of a un-fallen nature to choose without bias. Without this ability would be a non-sequitur fallacy. Sproul, Horton and many others hold to the latter position that Adam fell by his own free-will choice to sin from a unfallen state. Which caused the fall of humanity. God "Allowed" the Fall to happen but did not caused, coerce, force Adam to sin and fall. This would make God the author of sin and evil. And this for sure would be a non-sequitur fallacy. By the way Matt Slice also holds to the Classical View.​

• A tough point is that God "caused" the fall. All Christians endorse this. The Open Theist may deny this, but then when you look at it from their theology's point of view, God took the risk of people falling into sin, but He caused creation anyway. Hence, even in Open Theism, God still caused creation to happen, knowing the risk He was taking. The Arminian endorses that God knew with absolute, unalterable certainty that sin would necessarily come about if He created, and God created anyway. The Calvinist, who sees God's holy decree over all things, also sees God's creation as the initial cause, apart from which nothing would exist. God's knowledge in the act of creation (after all, God uses His mind as He creates. It's called design.) leads to the necessary conclusion that He is a remote cause of the fall. However, no one says that God is an immediate cause of sin. No one says that God sinned in the act of creating. No one says that God is morally culpable for Adam and Eve's sin. Again, I wrote about the causal conflation fallacy in the link provided. The different types of causation CANNOT be ignored. The difference of type of causation literally means everything, and to conflate the difference of type down to one leads to a whole host of equivocation fallacies and category errors.

Not all Christians hold to that God caused; meaning he forced or coerced Adam to sin. The problem with this statement is that Adam does not commit sin on his own, if he does sin not by his own free-will to make this decision to disobey God and fall, then he is not guilty of it by default. Just like in court when the judge asks were you forced, or coerced to do this crime against your will? If somebody is holding a gun to your head coercing you to break a Law, you are not liable for it. But if you break the Law willingly that's a different story altogether. Adam made the choice to sin, he wasn't coerced by God to make that choice. This is the classical view of Calvinism.​

• My final observation concerns your approach. Internet appearances can be deceiving, so I ask an important question. It seems like you are really concerned about this issue. Why are you so concerned about this issue? Your approach communicates a type of urgency and aggressiveness. Now maybe I'm missreading, but you seem a tad overly concerned about this issue.

Because this Hyper-Calvinist's view makes God the author of sin and evil. And who would ever want to trust, follow, and worship a God like that? Is God a moral monster or a loving God who rescues sinners by personally paying the penalty for our punished. God is not the author of sin and evil. Sin came into this world through One Man's Disobedience scripture is clear on this point. God did not force him to rebel, he did that on his own. Anyway, I am just sharing what the Classical Calvinist View is.​

 

[Ladodgers6]

A few simple observations are in order.

1. Genesis 1:31 is your only scripture reference. Your main point in bringing up this reference is God's proclamation "very good," which you assume is moral in nature rather than other possibilities. I won't debate your use of the moral sense of the word, since I also hold that God created an unfallen creation. The curse had not taken effect. Genesis 3 and the fall comes after Genesis 1 & 2. However, I do wish to inform you that an exegetical case can be made that the "very good" may very well not be moral in nature. It may very well refer to a different type of goodness.

I'm gonna runs some errands in a few. But wait a minute Clay, God made a Covenant of Works with Adam in which Adam did possess the ability to obey God to say Adam had to moral ability puts you between a rock and a hard place. Why? Because if God design Adam without the ability to fulfill what God command him, makes God the author of sin and evil. I'll explain further later, I got to go.​

 

[Ladodgers6]

(post #2 of 2)

• The idea of Adam not having a sin nature is endorsed by all, but this does not lead to libertarian freedom. Such a move would be a non-sequitur fallacy. Compat freedom does not require depravity to work; it only requires that human beings have a causal reason for the choices that they make. Hence, compat freedom works just fine in the garden. Adam and Eve chose because they had internal causal reasons for the choices that they made. They could not have done otherwise, but this in no way alleviates their responsibility for they acted in accord with their highest preference, they did what they wanted to do, thusly they were not coerced in any way (in the compat freedom view of coercion). They also could not have done otherwise than what God knew they would do. God's self-sufficient, perfect knowledge means that they could not have done otherwise than the true reality that God knows.

If Adam did not have a Libertarian Free-Will; meaning he could chose either way good or evil. Which the fallen do not possess, their depraved fallen will is now in bondage to sin. Whereas Adam in a un-fallen state is not tainted with sin. So, please tell me what kind of sin does Adam possess before his prelapsarian state?

 

[Ladodgers6]

(post #2 of 2)

• The idea of Adam not having a sin nature is endorsed by all, but this does not lead to libertarian freedom. Such a move would be a non-sequitur fallacy. Compat freedom does not require depravity to work; it only requires that human beings have a causal reason for the choices that they make. Hence, compat freedom works just fine in the garden. Adam and Eve chose because they had internal causal reasons for the choices that they made. They could not have done otherwise, but this in no way alleviates their responsibility for they acted in accord with their highest preference, they did what they wanted to do, thusly they were not coerced in any way (in the compat freedom view of coercion). They also could not have done otherwise than what God knew they would do. God's self-sufficient, perfect knowledge means that they could not have done otherwise than the true reality that God knows.
• A tough point is that God "caused" the fall. All Christians endorse this. The Open Theist may deny this, but then when you look at it from their theology's point of view, God took the risk of people falling into sin, but He caused creation anyway. Hence, even in Open Theism, God still caused creation to happen, knowing the risk He was taking. The Arminian endorses that God knew with absolute, unalterable certainty that sin would necessarily come about if He created, and God created anyway. The Calvinist, who sees God's holy decree over all things, also sees God's creation as the initial cause, apart from which nothing would exist. God's knowledge in the act of creation (after all, God uses His mind as He creates. It's called design.) leads to the necessary conclusion that He is a remote cause of the fall. However, no one says that God is an immediate cause of sin. No one says that God sinned in the act of creating. No one says that God is morally culpable for Adam and Eve's sin. Again, I wrote about the causal conflation fallacy in the link provided. The different types of causation CANNOT be ignored. The difference of type of causation literally means everything, and to conflate the difference of type down to one leads to a whole host of equivocation fallacies and category errors.
• My final observation concerns your approach. Internet appearances can be deceiving, so I ask an important question. It seems like you are really concerned about this issue. Why are you so concerned about this issue? Your approach communicates a type of urgency and aggressiveness. Now maybe I'm missreading, but you seem a tad overly concerned about this issue.

Okay, I'm back, sorry for the delay. If Adam did not have a libertarian Free-Will, what kind did he have?

 

[civic]

I appreciate the comment. I know full well that I am a sinful person though. I see it every day. I think that it was John Newton who said something something like this. "There are two things that I have learned in life. First, I am a great sinner. Second, I have an even greater Savior."

Amen

 

[Arial]

In summary, Adam had both free will and an unfallen nature, allowing him to make choices without being coerced. Christ’s nature, too, is a complex topic, but it is essential to understand His identification with fallen humanity while maintaining His sinlessness.

The way I see it, Jesus was not born in Adam. Adam was not His father. He was born of the Holy Ghost---divine nature----and Mary---human nature. Therefore He did not have a sin nature, I.e. a nature that was in bondage to sin and would sin. He was not born a sinner as we are. Sin is not only something we do, it is a part of what we are.

Jesus had the capacity to sin as He had the human capacity of choice, and lived in our sinful world. At the same time, it was ordained that He would not sin, as He was sent from the Father, and came from the Father, for the mission of accomplishing redemption through His substitution.

Adam had the same capacity to obey or not obey God when given specific commands. To disobey would be sin. He chose to disobey, and that is what tainted all of mankind to follow. Adam was given as our federal head. God intended that this would happen, for His purposes, but that does not make Him the author of our sin. But if you look at the bigger picture, having all of the information that we now have in our Bible, God is building a personal covenant and eternal relationship with not just Adam and Eve but the entire human community when it reaches its fullness. It is the only way in which humans can know and worship God personally. It is the covenant Yahweh of the OT. Not I am, but I will be this to you, I will do this for you. I will be your God and you will be my people. And the covenant name Father given to the New Covenant. I will be a Father to you. A people who were not my people I will call my people. Covenant promise. Jesus shedding the blood of the covenant, becoming our righteousness, reconciling us to God, the place where we can rest and trust.

 

[His clay]

Because this Hyper-Calvinist's view makes God the author of sin and evil. And who would ever want to trust, follow, and worship a God like that? Is God a moral monster or a loving God who rescues sinners by personally paying the penalty for our punished. God is not the author of sin and evil. Sin came into this world through One Man's Disobedience scripture is clear on this point. God did not force him to rebel, he did that on his own. Anyway, I am just sharing what the Classical Calvinist View is.​

Are you referring to my view, when you say "Hyper-Calvinist's view"?

 

[Ladodgers6]

Are you referring to my view, when you say "Hyper-Calvinist's view"?

I am speaking from that position I was once held, which is flawed. I am only sharing not trying to call you names. God did allow the Fall to happen but God did not cause Adam to sin. Adam was given all the tools to obey or disobey God. And by this Adam fell by his own free-will, and brought condemnation, sin, and death upon all. If God did not allow the Fall, then it would never happen, but allowing it does not make God the author of evil. But God causing it does. Because Adam did not have a choice in the matter.

Read Calvin on the matter. Again I am only sharing, not calling you names, hope you understand, thanks.

In Christ Alone through Grace Alone!​

 

[His clay]

I am speaking from that position I was once held, which is flawed. I am only sharing not trying to call you names. God did allow the Fall to happen but God did not cause Adam to sin. Adam was given all the tools to obey or disobey God. And by this Adam fell by his own free-will, and brought condemnation, sin, and death upon all. If God did not allow the Fall, then it would never happen, but allowing it does not make God the author of evil. But God causing it does. Because Adam did not have a choice in the matter.

Read Calvin on the matter. Again I am only sharing, not calling you names, hope you understand, thanks.

In Christ Alone through Grace Alone!​

Thank you for taking the time to explain. Please note that what you once held and what I hold are different in very significant ways. After your explanation, you see the hyper-c view not really in a historical (church history) sense but rather in a personal sense, as a personally (personal history) defined sense that you now view as excessive. I hope that I'm paraphrasing your idea correctly. I only hope that you don't let your zeal against your prior view make you miss the differences between your past and my present. Thanks again.

 

[Ladodgers6]

I am speaking from that position I was once held, which is flawed. I am only sharing not trying to call you names. God did allow the Fall to happen but God did not cause Adam to sin. Adam was given all the tools to obey or disobey God. And by this Adam fell by his own free-will, and brought condemnation, sin, and death upon all. If God did not allow the Fall, then it would never happen, but allowing it does not make God the author of evil. But God causing it does. Because Adam did not have a choice in the matter.

Read Calvin on the matter. Again I am only sharing, not calling you names, hope you understand, thanks.

In Christ Alone through Grace Alone!​

Always reforming...

 

[Arial]

I am speaking from that position I was once held, which is flawed. I am only sharing not trying to call you names. God did allow the Fall to happen but God did not cause Adam to sin. Adam was given all the tools to obey or disobey God. And by this Adam fell by his own free-will, and brought condemnation, sin, and death upon all. If God did not allow the Fall, then it would never happen, but allowing it does not make God the author of evil. But God causing it does. Because Adam did not have a choice in the matter.

Read Calvin on the matter. Again I am only sharing, not calling you names, hope you understand, thanks.

In Christ Alone through Grace Alone!​

Would you say God intended that the fall occur?

And if so, it leaves the argument that God caused the fall wide open, even if that argument is false. How would you and @His clay (and anyone else) respond to that?

 

[His clay]

Would you say God intended that the fall occur?

And if so, it leaves the argument that God caused the fall wide open, even if that argument is false. How would you and @His clay (and anyone else) respond to that?

I've responded to it multiple times already.

(1) I've provided a link to my own material in another thread. The causal conflation fallacy must be observed. Causal distinctions are utterly important. Post 143 has the link. To adequately understand my position, then one needs to understand the different types of causation mentioned there.

(2) I've also responded to the "cause" issue in this thread in the second bullet point, post #144.

(3) While some go with the causal break by advocating libertarian freedom, I go the rout of the transcendent shift between the Creator and the created, because libertarian freedom (a) destroys Christianity, is (b) utter nonsense, and (c) violates too much scripture.

 

[Arial]

I've responded to it multiple times already.

(1) I've provided a link to my own material in another thread. The causal conflation fallacy must be observed. Causal distinctions are utterly important. Post 143 has the link. To adequately understand my position, then one needs to understand the different types of causation mentioned there.

(2) I've also responded to the "cause" issue in this thread in the second bullet point, post #144.

(3) While some go with the causal break by advocating libertarian freedom, I go the rout of the transcendent shift between the Creator and the created, because libertarian freedom (a) destroys Christianity, is (b) utter nonsense, and (c) violates too much scripture.

Sorry, I have not read much of the later part of this thread. Will read those posts.

 

[His clay]

Sorry, I have not read much of the later part of this thread. Will read those posts.

No problem. If after your reading, you see something unaddressed, then please point it out and let me know.

I'm more than happy to address an unaddressed issue, but when I have to keep posting the same material over and over I begin to question the sincerity of another poster (general principle). However, I do realize that sometimes I could be a bit more patient; I'm definitely working on this.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Would you say God intended that the fall occur?

And if so, it leaves the argument that God caused the fall wide open, even if that argument is false. How would you and @His clay (and anyone else) respond to that?

Please explain and define, "God caused the Fall".

 

[Arial]

I've responded to it multiple times already.

(1) I've provided a link to my own material in another thread. The causal conflation fallacy must be observed. Causal distinctions are utterly important. Post 143 has the link. To adequately understand my position, then one needs to understand the different types of causation mentioned there.

(2) I've also responded to the "cause" issue in this thread in the second bullet point, post #144.

(3) While some go with the causal break by advocating libertarian freedom, I go the rout of the transcendent shift between the Creator and the created, because libertarian freedom (a) destroys Christianity, is (b) utter nonsense, and (c) violates too much scripture.

I read those posts and the link, and though I completely agree with you, it is so complex and detailed that I I question whether the average Joe would be satisfied that the question had been answered. They may have tuned out half way through. That is not a criticism of your posts but a compliment. I can follow it, but I don't ordinarily think or write with such complexity---because I am not equipped to.

So taking LFW out of the equation for a moment and sit with the first question, "Did God intend the fall to happen?" I focus on that word "intend." If He intended for the fall to happen He created our world, and in exactly the way in which He created it, for a reason. And that purpose and reason was fully seen, known, formed, in all its detail before creation. How long before, we are not told, but God being God, I would have to say it was eternal, it did not have a beginning in God, it only had a beginning in our world as God entered into working within that world. In addition, it is covenantal---a personal relationship with God and His creation. God being the sovereign. The concept of man having LFW does come in here. He doesn't. He can't. Man is responsible to God. He was created with a will and as a moral agent, ---in the image and likeness of God. A covenantal, interpersonal relationship, "I will be your God, and your will be my people." that can only be achieved by God Himself, the covenant parameters set only by Him, the obligation of the one covenanted with, established by Him. "In my image and likeness." We are to imitate Him in our personal relationships and our position as stewards over His creation. The consequences of our covenant breaking made clear. And so it went. The idea that we need LFW in order to be responsible beings and if we don't have it, God is responsible for us being sinners who sin, is ludicrous. We were created responsible for our own actions, and we are responsible to Him.

But why did He intend the fall? There is a bigger picture here than cause and causal. Why did He intend the fall and having done so, why is He then not the cause of sin?

Sin is missing the mark, it is rebellion against God, it is covenant breaking. But it did not come into existence in us or in our world. For any moral agent, spiritual or material, if a will exists in the being, it is possible for rebellion to occur. Evil is not a creation, it exists as the absence of good, and Scripture at least suggests the source, the fountain, of perpetrating evil is Satan. And if we look at the end of this long tale of redemption as revealed throughout the NT especially, but summarized in Rev 21, we see what He is promising to do. A new creation in which there is no sorrow, or weeping, or pain or death or evil. God is fighting and winning a cosmic war, and in such a "foolish" way. Through the gathering and redeeming of lowly, sinful, men who are by nature at enmity with Him, through these same men preaching the gospel far and wide, to the whole world! And doing so by taking on the flesh of this lowly man and of all things, dying! He laughs at all who rale against Him. He has set His King on Zion!