God wanted man to fall

LightLoveHope

Jesus leads us to life
Oct 6, 2018
1,473
458
London
✟79,581.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Your definition is yours. My definition is the one that has existed for 2500 years and is still being used by secular philosophers.

That is, btw, why very few secular philosophers even believe in "free will" today. Almost all believe in some form of determinism ("free will" is an absolute term...it either exists or it doesn't. It doesn't exist in degrees). Only Christians natter about "free will," even though scripture itself argues against the proposition.
Below is a definition of free will, that you talk about being 2,500 years old

Free Will

The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions. Questions concerning the nature and existence of this kind of control (e.g., does it require and do we have the freedom to do otherwise or the power of self-determination?), and what its true significance is (is it necessary for moral responsibility or human dignity?) have been taken up in every period of Western philosophy and by many of the most important philosophical figures, such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant. (We cannot undertake here a review of related discussions in other philosophical traditions. For a start, the reader may consult Marchal and Wenzel 2017 and Chakrabarti 2017 for overviews of thought on free will, broadly construed, in Chinese and Indian philosophical traditions, respectively.) In this way, it should be clear that disputes about free will ineluctably involve disputes about metaphysics and ethics. In ferreting out the kind of control involved in free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) causation, laws of nature, time, substance, ontological reduction vs emergence, the relationship of causal and reasons-based explanations, the nature of motivation and more generally of human persons. In assessing the significance of free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) rightness and wrongness, good and evil, virtue and vice, blame and praise, reward and punishment, and desert. The topic of free will also gives rise to purely empirical questions that are beginning to be explored in the human sciences: do we have it, and to what degree?

The bible declares definitively those in Christ can choose what they sow to.

21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death!
22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
Rom 6:21-22

7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
Gal 6:7-8

Paul is emphasising above as believers we have a choice as to what we sow and how we live.
Repentance at its heart is a choice to admit sin is wrong and commit oneself to walk in righteousness.

The whole book of Job is about Jobs choice to praise God despite his circumstance and how satan claimed it was just situational dependent on blessing. This teaches righteousness is a conscious choice of the heart.
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Scripture tells that that we only have a choice of master (which is not "free will" by anyone's definition), and that choice only by the grace of God.
This interpretation denies all true love, all true marriage in heaven and all true holiness as these things to be true must spring from a free will decision of the person.


God clearly knew what would transpire in creation before anything had been created.
It is written often that GOD does not want anyone to die, ie, to suffer or end in hell. The pagan Greek widom definition of omniscience brought into the church by the Greek idolizers and Augustine, ie, GOD knows everything that can be known from eternity past to eternity future...certainly sounds all Godly and all eh? To bad it is a blasphemy...

GOD is Love, holy, righteous and Just before all else. All doctrine must conform to HIS nature. All doctrine that impugnes HIS nature is a blasphemy.

This definition of HIS omniscience implies that HE knew before their creation who would end in hell BUT CREATED THEM ANYWAY!!! This is not loving; it is not righteous; it is not just - no matter how many books of theo-babble have been written to try to make it so...therefore it is blasphemy.

GOD does all things for HIS pleasure but HE takes NO PLEASURE in the death of the wicked - therefore HE did not create them evil to go to hell! Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked...

Also, HE wants all people to be saved, 1 Timothy 2:4...who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. so whether HE will get this want fulfilled or not, HE obviously did NOT create anyone evil and without hope for salvation, ie, destined to hell at creation!

So what do I offer in its place? Acts 15:18 KJB Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. To be precise, HE knows all HIS works, usually accepted to be referring to all that HE was created by HIS creative decree, which implies that IF HE did not create something by HIS creative decree, HE does NOT KNOW IT.

Also, these things HE knows from, since, the beginning of the world, not BEFORE creation, not since eternity past. Therefore we
have good Biblical reason to reject the pagan wisdom the ancient Church idolized.

King James Bible Acts 15:18
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
This biblical definition of what HE knows also implies that If HE did NOT create the results of our free will decisions but let us create those results by our free will according to what we most wanted, THEN HE did not know these results of our free will decisions UNTIL we created the for ourselves and brought them into reality.

Therefore NO ONE was created evil; not before Adam (Satan etc) nor after Adam (you, me) but all sinners were created with a free will and an equal ability and opportunity to choose to become holy or evil and then all sinners were sown into the world as per Matt 13:38-39.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LightLoveHope
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As we know God was very must aware of Adam and Eves existence before they existence. He also knew that they would disobey him, How do we know that? The answer is, is God is infinite in knowledge so we understand that he allowed Adam and Eve to sin for a bigger picture. Whats the bigger picture Theosis!!!!! Adam and Eve were corruptible but perfect(sinless) before they fall from Gods Grace, so The Son came as a servant to make us as him not corruptible, all this to make us perfect as him. Is why God didnt want to change the outcome of Adam and Eve fall.

Yep. It is called...."Freedom of Choice" which does not interfer with predestination at all.
 
Upvote 0

dóxatotheó

Orthodox Church Familia
May 12, 2021
991
318
19
South Carolina
✟17,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I am fine with the sovereignty of God. Being limited is what results from your line of reasoning. Saying he is unlimited, but itemizing a limitation is not logical. I'm not in agreement with @RDKirk but at least his position is consistent.
There is no limitation your adding a view to God energies just because one has one aspect the other should have that aspect God is simple man.
God can choose to be anything he wants to be if he is truly unlimited, so I'm not sure why you would insult him by calling him ignorant. If I'm sitting in my house and want to know what the weather is outside, I'll look out the window. If I don't care to know, I won't. I can see it any time, but I may not consider it part of my plan to know.
God isnt finite ever he is always infinite. Also, he isnt finite in wisdom and intellect God doesnt change his own energies for no reason at all.
Did God create their disposition or not? If yes, then he is responsible for their disposition. If not, does he know their disposition? Did he know what their disposition would be before he created them? If so, then it's the same thing.
The act of willing —are different acts: yet they belong to the same power, as also to understand and to reason, as we have said. By the form the nature of a thing is perfected: yet the subject needs to be disposed in regard to the form by some disposition. But the form itself is further ordained to operation, which is either the end, or the means to the end. And if the form is limited to one fixed operation, no further disposition, besides the form itself, is needed for the operation. But if the form be such that it can operate in diverse ways, as the soul; it needs to be disposed to its operations by means of habits.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SuperCow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 14, 2018
587
275
57
Leonardtown, MD
✟197,175.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In my discussion on the subject of the fall one thing has become clear. Adam and Eve were not free thinking people like we are. The choice before them was to open the door to choice and die, or stay in the situation they found themselves with the Father.

That's the same choice we all have. The only difference is our starting position is to die, and we have a choice to choose God and live. Adam and Eve flipped the script and Jesus gives us a way back.

After man fell, God declare
"The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever" Gen 3:22

God uses the term "one of us" referring to the trinity.
The key criteria was to stop man becoming eternal.

Maybe, but it does not specifically say that. "one of us" could be referring to the entire angelic host. The text is vague in that sense.

So this creates two different points. Adam and Eve were not yet eternal or had eaten from the tree of life. Their mortality existed from the beginning. So death was not introduced by the fall, rather eternal continuation of life has not yet be applied.

I don't agree with this, because if this was the case, then death wouldn't be the punishment if they were already mortal. "Eat from this and you will die" would be meaningless. What happens if they eat from the tree of life and then eat from the tree of knowledge of good and bad? Then we have contradictory outcomes.

Assuming the tree of life is an actual tree and not a metaphor, it would be something they had access to any time before they sinned, otherwise there would be no reason to suddenly guard them from it.

Now God knew this series of events was always going to take place. The serpent put it well, once you are changed you will not die. Now the death was talking about physical death and spiritual death. The serpents lie was knowledge would conquer the physical consequences of death, and ignored it would destroy the relationship with the very source of life itself, God. And this is our common experience. Wherever we are somewhere else must be much better, because those people over there appear to have something we have not got. Jesus is all about seeing the blessing it what is all about us, and sharing love within this. If Adam and Eve had had this, things might have gone very differently.

Another theme is communion with the Lord, which John the Baptist had from conception. God values the choice to turn from sin and walk in His ways, accepting his forgiveness through the cross and planting love in our lives. It seems this would have been impossible without the fall, so Adams mistake was needed to create the resolution God intended.

God would value the choice not to sin in the first place even more, so Adam's mistake was not necessary. Accepting forgiveness is only necessary because we are born into sin with no hope except through Christ's redemption. If Adam and Eve did not sin and had children, then those children would not have been born into sin, as they would have been perfect as their parents were.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SuperCow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 14, 2018
587
275
57
Leonardtown, MD
✟197,175.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Could Judas or Pontius Pilate have behaved differently? I think not.

I'm not so sure about that. Jesus attempted to witness to Pontius Pilate, but was rejected with Pilate's sarcastic response "What is truth?".

That being said, if they could not have behaved differently, what is their punishment for being a part in killing the messiah? Or if you want, what is their reward for doing exactly what they were supposed to do by prophecy?
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As we know God was very must aware of Adam and Eves existence before they existence. He also knew that they would disobey him, How do we know that? The answer is, is God is infinite in knowledge so we understand that he allowed Adam and Eve to sin for a bigger picture. Whats the bigger picture Theosis!!!!! Adam and Eve were corruptible but perfect(sinless) before they fall from Gods Grace, so The Son came as a servant to make us as him not corruptible, all this to make us perfect as him. Is why God didnt want to change the outcome of Adam and Eve fall.
What is "theosis," where do we find it in Scripture?
 
Upvote 0

dóxatotheó

Orthodox Church Familia
May 12, 2021
991
318
19
South Carolina
✟17,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
What is "theosis," where do we find it in Scripture?
Theosis ("deification," "divinization") is the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamartía ("missing the mark"), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Théōsis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation. Théōsis assumes that humans from the beginning are made to share in the Life or Nature of the all-Holy Trinity. Therefore, an infant or an adult worshiper is saved from the state of unholiness (hamartía — which is not to be confused with hamártēma “sin”) for participation in the Life (zōé, not simply bíos) of the Trinity — which is everlasting. 2 Peter 1:3-4:, “we who are Jews by nature” (Galatians 2:13; KJV) or spiritual condition: “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3; KJV). Paul in Romans uses the word physis in some rather interesting ways. In Romans chapter 2 he points out that there are Gentiles who are “not circumcised physically” (Romans 2:27; NIV) but who “do by nature things required by the law” (Romans 2:14; NIV). The expectation here is that both the outward and inward natures would complement the other. In other words our inner spiritual life ought to be expressed in our outward actions. So likewise our actions should flow from our inner life. And just as significant is the possibility that one’s nature can change, be transformed. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul wrote about “natural desires” (NIV) being “exchanged” (NIV) for unnatural ones. Just as sin results in the alteration of human nature so likewise salvation in Christ calls for a reverse alteration in human nature (cf. Romans 12:2).
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Theosis ("deification," "divinization") is the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamartía ("missing the mark"), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Théōsis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation.
2 Peter 1:4 means that we are indwelt by God through his divine Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17), right?
Théōsis assumes that humans from the beginning are made to share in the Life or Nature of the all-Holy Trinity. Therefore, an infant or an adult worshiper is saved from the state of unholiness (hamartía — which is not to be confused with hamártēma “sin”) for participation in the Life (zōé, not simply bíos) of the Trinity — which is everlasting. 2 Peter 1:3-4:, “we who are Jews by nature” (Galatians 2:15 KJV) or spiritual condition: “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3; KJV). Paul in Romans uses the word physis in some rather interesting ways. In Romans chapter 2 he points out that there are Gentiles who are “not circumcised physically” (Romans 2:27; NIV) but who “do by nature things required by the law” (Romans 2:14; NIV). The expectation here is that both the outward and inward natures would complement the other. In other words our inner spiritual life ought to be expressed in our outward actions. So likewise our actions should flow from our inner life.
And just as significant is the possibility that one’s nature can change, be transformed. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul wrote about “natural desires” (NIV) being “exchanged” (NIV) for unnatural ones.
Actually, in Romans 1:26-27 Paul is not referring to a change to a different nature, but to a depravity of the same nature, doing what is contrary to itself.
Just as sin results in the alteration of human nature so likewise salvation in Christ calls for a reverse alteration in human nature (cf. Romans 12:2).
You are referring here to Adam's fall as the cause of the change in human nature, right? . . .from a being disposed toward God, to a being disposed against God (Romans 8:7-8).
So we are born now with a fallen sinful nature (harmatia?).

However, salvation does not remove that fallen nature, it simply removes its former power. But it is still there, making us unacceptable in the pure and holy presence of God, defiling his holy presence without the imputed/credited righteousness of Jesus Christ through faith (Romans 5:18-19), as righteousness was imputed/credited to Abraham through faith (Romans 4:3; Genesis 15:6), so that God could fellowship with him without defiling his pure and holy presence.

P.S.: Are you the author of the following post:
Thats not literal in anyway.

If we dont have a human will than monophysitism is true just letting yk. We do have a human nature which is how we sin but it isn't how we act.

The OP was targeting the Calvinist view on election. Secondly, I am a teenager so Of course my sentence structures wouldn't be perfect. I literally still in High School
Click on the little arrow pointing upward after your name to link back to it.
 
Last edited:
  • Optimistic
Reactions: dóxatotheó
Upvote 0

LightLoveHope

Jesus leads us to life
Oct 6, 2018
1,473
458
London
✟79,581.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I'm not so sure about that. Jesus attempted to witness to Pontius Pilate, but was rejected with Pilate's sarcastic response "What is truth?".

That being said, if they could not have behaved differently, what is their punishment for being a part in killing the messiah? Or if you want, what is their reward for doing exactly what they were supposed to do by prophecy?
I see the problem of my language. When I say Judas and Pontius Pilate could not do anything other than when they did, is not because of Gods will but their own. Judas was set on cutting a terrible mistake short and getting as much financial gain before he legged it. Once that dominated his mind, there was no way back because his faith was Jesus was a fraud and was not going to conquer the Romans.

Pilate just wanted to appease the jews, he had no real care for those under his charge, just feathering his nest. It was always a question of balancing Roman justice and the accusation he was a bad ruler in roman terms, and keeping the jews happy so he could be seen as a good and strong ruler. After reading the history of the guys of the time, this was a hard balancing act, especially with roman emporers like Nero. Whatever Jesus was to Pilate, he saw him as a fanatic idealist. And he knew they could be the worst if their followers became revolutionary, which some Jewish groups of the time were already doing.

Once to see these men in this light, the idea of them calling Jesus Lord and not following through was impossible. Believers do not see how sin and delusion takes hold of the soul and makes the seductive suggestion so inviting, except love shows the cost is too high and damaging. Judas saw it after Jesus died. His greed and giving up was the worst dead end he could chose, no way back.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SuperCow
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SuperCow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 14, 2018
587
275
57
Leonardtown, MD
✟197,175.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Pilate just wanted to appease the jews, he had no real care for those under his charge, just feathering his nest. It was always a question of balancing Roman justice and the accusation he was a bad ruler in roman terms, and keeping the jews happy so he could be seen as a good and strong ruler. After reading the history of the guys of the time, this was a hard balancing act, especially with roman emporers like Nero. Whatever Jesus was to Pilate, he saw him as a fanatic idealist. And he knew they could be the worst if their followers became revolutionary, which some Jewish groups of the time were already doing.

I agree with everything you just posted. I don’t think Pontus Pilate actually wanted to kill Jesus though. That’s why he tried to deflect the people with the choice between him and Barabbas. He knew he was innocent and was surprised by the crowd’s choice. Then when he had the chance he chose his military career over justice.
 
Upvote 0

dóxatotheó

Orthodox Church Familia
May 12, 2021
991
318
19
South Carolina
✟17,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
2 Peter 1:4 means that we are indwelt by God through his divine Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17), right?

Actually, in Romans 1:26-27 Paul is not referring to a change to a different nature, but to a depravity of the same nature, doing what is contrary to itself.

You are referring here to Adam's fall as the cause of the change in human nature, right? . . .from a being disposed toward God, to a being disposed against God (Romans 8:7-8).
So we are born now with a fallen sinful nature (harmatia?).

However, salvation does not remove that fallen nature, it simply removes its former power. But it is still there, making us unacceptable in the pure and holy presence of God, defiling his holy presence without the imputed/credited righteousness of Jesus Christ through faith (Romans 5:18-19), as righteousness was imputed/credited to Abraham through faith (Romans 4:3; Genesis 15:6), so that God could fellowship with him without defiling his pure and holy presence.

P.S.: Are you the author of the following post:

Click on the little arrow pointing upward after your name to link back to it.
We are not debating theosis that is not relevant to my OP at all, you ask what it was I told you.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
To state God could have intervened but allowed them to fall just lack logical sense to me because if one of Gods energies are Love than he should want them to live and not die. On the contrary, in my view God wanted them to fall because he loved them and wanted us to defeat all forms of death and be as perfect as him.
Worse yet would be if God commanded them not to eat of the fruit, while wanting them to eat of it! Sort of the height of hypocrisy. As it is, there’s absolutely no reason a sovereign, omnipotent, God, knowing the end from the beginning, can’t deem it good and worthwhile to leave man in the hands of his own counsel, to give him the freedom to oppose even His own will, even as evil resulted, while planning to bring an even greater good out of it in the end.
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Free Will
My definition of a free will...

All FREE means is uncoerced:

IF GOD set it up so HIS new creation had no coercion or constraints upon their choices, forcing them to choose anything, they had free will.

The Elements of a True Free Will Choice:


1. Free will can't be coerced nor constrained:
Nothing in their created nature
could FORCE them to choose love or hate, good or evil, including all genetics...

Nothing in their experience could FORCE them to choose love or hate, good or evil, including all, cultural or familial experience...

Nothing in their understanding or knowledge of reality could FORCE them to choose good or evil, love or hate.

In other words, they had to be completely and truly ingenuously innocent.
[Ref: definition of ingenuous: [URL="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ingenuousness"]ingenuousness[/url] as: 1. Lacking in cunning, guile, worldliness; artless. 2. Openly straightforward or frank; candid.

2. Consequences must be known but not proved:
The person must understand the full consequences of their choice or it is a guess, not a true choice.
“What will happen if I choose left or right, the red pill or the blue pill?” must be answered in full detail.

But "PROOF" of the nature of the consequence would compel or coerce the person to choose what was proven to be the best for them. If the answer “death here,” “life there,” was proven, which would you choose? The weight of knowledge would destroy the effect of a true ‘free will’ choice.

If it were proven you would die if you went left, are you truly free to choose to go right? No, you are forced by your knowledge to go right. Therefore they must know, but without proof, the nature of the consequences of their choice.

Only then are they following their desires, their deepest hope in the nature of reality, defining the reality they most hope to enjoy.

Peace, Ted
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Permissible will vs active(perfect)will my friend.
upload_2021-11-19_20-14-11.jpeg
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There is no true "free will" in scripture. That is a Greek pagan concept adopted--and adapted--by Aquinas and Augustine to counter pagan accusations that God is deterministic. "Free will" means no person's choices of moral actions are constrained or carry consequences imposed by another moral agent. That's not what scripture tells us. Scripture tells that that we only have a choice of master (which is not "free will" by anyone's definition), and that choice only by the grace of God.

Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? -- Romans 6

The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. -- Romans 8

Aquinas and Augustine acknowledge that "free will" as they used it was constrained to this "choice of master," but people today tend to gloss over the fact that "free will" as adapted by those men is not the same "free will" as spoken of in the secular world even now.

And if angels actually even have a "choice of masters," it's apparent that they do not have access to reconciliation with God through the blood of Christ.



God does not have to "zap" Satan. God (that is, the person of the Son specifically) merely needs to stop willing Satan's continued existence. Satan continues to exist only because God wills it so.

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. -- Colossians 1

God clearly knew what would transpire in creation before anything had been created.

For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence. In love.
....
In Him we were also chosen as God’s own, having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything by the counsel of His will,
-- Ephesians 1

The important message Paul was trying to transmit to the Ephesians is that--unlike the pagan gods they'd worshipped before--our God is not a capricious god who acts on whim, who will love them today and turn them into a goose or a tree tomorrow, but is a God whose plan was firmly laid before creation and will not vary into eternity.

So the questions of Why did God create Lucifer? Why did God create the Tree? Why did God give that command? Why does God continue to will Satan's existence? are still questions not fully answered for us by scripture. These continue to be questions that we cover by faith that God's eternal plan is for our good, and thus is good regardless of the path it takes us through.
It takes freewill to obey.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dóxatotheó

Orthodox Church Familia
May 12, 2021
991
318
19
South Carolina
✟17,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The idea of HIS permissive will contradicts the idea that HE wanted and therefore caused people to sin.

GOD's creation ends with HIS heavenly marriage to HIS people. For this marriage to be real, HIS proposal for marriage to us had to be accepted by us freely without coercion. If no one could choose to say no and repudiate HIM as a good husband and so became evil, there is no freedom in the decision to accept HIS proposal, only coercion by constraint.

HE did not want anyone to choose to be evil. HE didn't need anyone to choose to be evil but HE had to allow anyone who wanted to repudiate HIM as a false god and a liar to do so and thus become eternally evil.

Love and marriage cannot be forced by anything at all and still be considered to be real. GOD did not want a Borg like Stepford wife.
Do you even know what permissible will is?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TedT
Upvote 0