Gen 2:16 reads "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat"
I understand from this verse that man is given the liberty to eat from every tree. The next verse talks about the exception to the rule.
Since everything from the most significant event to the most mundane and day-to-day ordinary activities are already foreordained by God, I assume that that includes every choice of food that man ate. When man ate his first meal for example, I assume that his choice of fruit was determined by (1) his own free will which God gave him, and (2) God's foreordained will for the all man's action.
I can appreciate the thought that God's foreordaining of things to come may not contradict his giving of free will to man in making choices that are decided later. In this simple case, Calvinism, from my understanding, believes that God is the primary cause and man the secondary cause of the man's choice of his first meal.
From such reasoning, I see that the same is true when man ate from the forbidden tree. (Some might add that the same is true when man crucified the Son of God.)
It is easy to see that from God's perspective, world history can be likened to a finished novel where every word printed on the page is fixed and not going to change. From man's perspective, life is full of choices and uncertainty. Now man, however enlightened, will still make decisions from life's choices and feel uncertain, say on how his life might turn out.
It is easy to see that when man commits an act, it is but the unfolding of what God has foreordained to happen. When God is sorry for how man acted, He is sorry because that is the right way to feel and NOT because that God would have willed man's action otherwise. The thought that God was sorry for man's action because man violated His will seems to be impossible because God himself is the primary cause of man's choices (thought not morally responsible for it.)
So my question is, how can man (secondary cause of action) violate the will of God (primary cause of action) when man's violation is precisely God's foreordained act?
If God perfectly foreordained whatsoever that came to pass according to his good pleasure, will He be sorry that a foreordained state of affairs came to pass?
(Please note that I appreciate the fact that man is morally responsible being the secondary cause of his own actions.)
I understand from this verse that man is given the liberty to eat from every tree. The next verse talks about the exception to the rule.
Since everything from the most significant event to the most mundane and day-to-day ordinary activities are already foreordained by God, I assume that that includes every choice of food that man ate. When man ate his first meal for example, I assume that his choice of fruit was determined by (1) his own free will which God gave him, and (2) God's foreordained will for the all man's action.
I can appreciate the thought that God's foreordaining of things to come may not contradict his giving of free will to man in making choices that are decided later. In this simple case, Calvinism, from my understanding, believes that God is the primary cause and man the secondary cause of the man's choice of his first meal.
From such reasoning, I see that the same is true when man ate from the forbidden tree. (Some might add that the same is true when man crucified the Son of God.)
It is easy to see that from God's perspective, world history can be likened to a finished novel where every word printed on the page is fixed and not going to change. From man's perspective, life is full of choices and uncertainty. Now man, however enlightened, will still make decisions from life's choices and feel uncertain, say on how his life might turn out.
It is easy to see that when man commits an act, it is but the unfolding of what God has foreordained to happen. When God is sorry for how man acted, He is sorry because that is the right way to feel and NOT because that God would have willed man's action otherwise. The thought that God was sorry for man's action because man violated His will seems to be impossible because God himself is the primary cause of man's choices (thought not morally responsible for it.)
So my question is, how can man (secondary cause of action) violate the will of God (primary cause of action) when man's violation is precisely God's foreordained act?
If God perfectly foreordained whatsoever that came to pass according to his good pleasure, will He be sorry that a foreordained state of affairs came to pass?
(Please note that I appreciate the fact that man is morally responsible being the secondary cause of his own actions.)
Last edited: