Who decides our destinies? God or ourselves?

[GoBahnsen]

Your distinction is meaningless to me. Earlier you characterized Jews as being blind. You continue to set conditions (I must now talk about your fictional idol with you to get your love and respect). However, you want to parse it now, it is still a fact that I'm sick of the jesus talk. I've already had this same conversation with at least 50 other Christians through the years. I still pass.

If you are you seriously unable to discuss anything else, that is pretty, darn sad. I feel pity for you.

You know, if a Mormon didn't want to proceed with me until I told him what I thought of Joseph Smith, I'd be more than happy to point out Smith's false prophecies and absurd teachings of people living on the moon.

The problem for you when dealing with Jesus, is that just like the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day, you will have to go away confounded. Jesus answered the best that Judaism had to offer. Jesus did so publicly. Then they had him killed to fulfill your Scriptures. Not stoned, but pierced. Not a bone of him broken.

[Tanakh Keeper]

I would think that would be against basic Judaic Values.

You're right it is. Now the danger of the unlearned using Kabbalah should be very clear.

A little tidbit that I do know is that the Kabbalah is very esoteric. There is almost nothing that can be read literally in it.

Stick with the Torah, it can mostly be read literally.

[Tanakh Keeper]

You know, if a Mormon didn't want to proceed with me until I told him what I thought of Joseph Smith, I'd be more than happy to point out Smith's false prophecies and absurd teachings of people living on the moon.

The problem for you when dealing with Jesus, is that just like the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day, you will have to go away confounded. Jesus answered the best that Judaism had to offer. Jesus did so publicly. Then they had him killed to fulfill your Scriptures. Not stoned, but pierced. Not a bone of him broken.

Yeah, I'm sure that's it. I can't answer anything you have to say.

[GoBahnsen]

Yeah, I'm sure that's it. I can't answer anything you have to say.

You can answer me just fine, it's Jesus Himself who will give you fits.

[George Blaisdell]

You're right it is. Now the danger of the unlearned using Kabbalah should be very clear.

Meaning yourself, yes??.

A little tidbit that I do know is that the Kabbalah is very esoteric. There is almost nothing that can be read literally in it.

I have heard that some Jews use a Ouija Board when they interpret a Kabala reading, unless they can afford to hire a Gypsy Fortune Teller...

Me? Gosh... I guess I could flip a coin???

Arsenios

[GoBahnsen]

Yeah, I'm sure that's it. I can't answer anything you have to say.

Tweb Reporter: GoB, how do you feel about this member's exasperation with you?

GB: I didn't know that he was exasperated. I thought he meant that he couldn't answer me, so I won the debate.

Reporter: He seems to think that you are coo coo, by the icon he chose from all the available icons.

GB: I thought that that meant he was scratching his head or something... No really, I think that I won the debate and that he was conceding. It was his way of conceding the debate.

[The Remonstrant]

Just because all things must pass through God's will in order to actually transpire in creation, does not in any way excuse men from obeying God. Think about what you're saying: if you don't actually have the ability to alter the course of events in this world, apart from God's will or involvement, then you're not motivated anymore?

I did not say that or even mean to infer it.

I know where you are coming from, because I was once there too (though not exactly the same as you)...I used to get excited about my own power to affect God's happiness.

To be honest, I am not that thrilled or fascinated with the concept of creaturely free will or human autonomy. I believe, however, that Scripture assumes it.

IOW, if I was more active and got more people to accept Christ, then God would have more souls praising Him forever, and all because of little ol me. That was a very exciting thought. Very empowering indeed.

Well, it would only be true in an instrumental sense, as the apostle Paul thought of himself. In 1 Corinthians ix, he speaks of his becoming all things to all people that he might save some. He entertained no illusions. He knew that not all would be believe and so be saved, but there is no allusion in this chapter regarding his preaching ministry that the reason only some (not all) would be saved is because of God's unconditional decree to bestow faith on some. (Yes, this is an argument from silence, but it is still interesting to note.) In 1 Cor iii, Paul writes of God giving growth to the Word (v 6), but Paul nevertheless views ministers of the gospel as co-labourers, or 'fellow workers' (v 9). Your motivation for sharing the good news was probably just a bit confused, or tainted with self-centredness. Only God knows; I cannot judge the matter.

Sure, it would follow that IF people would just get busy, then more would be saved and God would have more souls. It's all about people and what they want to do. God has to live with their results.

Again, we are co-labourers with God. Reread Acts, Romans xi, 1 Corinthians ix, and Philippians. Paul understood his calling in preaching the gospel as extremely important. This consisted not only in edifying believers (which should not be, as it often is today, diminished), but also in worldwide evangelisation.

God never, then, originally intended to damn anyone. More could be saved than really are being saved. This is an impetus for believers to diligently evangelise.

Another way to look at it is, that every time anyone is actually involved as an instrument of God in leading another to Christ, it is because God planned it that way, not because of the person with his supposed autonomous free will.

This does not address at all what I am saying. I was alluding above to God's original intention in creation. That original plan had nothing to do with damning anyone. I was referring to the double predestination concept of Calvinism.

I suppose you won't be able to agree with me at this point in time, but what I see you saying is that you're not motivated unless you are convinced that you are acting autonomously. IOW, you're not up for any activity for God, unless you are convinced that your good ideas were created by you... and without you, God wouldn't get as many souls to praise Him forever.

GB, I have no idea how you read this into my post. This is not true; I do not assent to these statements. Why are you attempting to psychoanalyse? What is the purpose?

Sure, you will want to say that God "helps" you get your good ideas, but that's it. He has to respect your own creative powers...and He has to live with what you come up with for Him. This is all very intoxicating to humans. The power to affect God's happiness. A finite creature changing the future of the Eternal One.

This is all off the mark. Refer to my comments above.

Also, if Arminianism is true then it is possible for those once saved to fall from grace, ceasing to persevere to the end. The question for individuals in the church to be asking is not, then, 'Am I truly one of the unconditionally predestinated elect?' (which, if true, no one would know until the judgement), but 'Am I presently in the faith?' The concern is in persevering in the faith.

That's a question for all Christians to be asking themselves. It's just plain biblical isn't it? Am I one who possesses genuine faith in Christ or am I a phony? A Calvinist, because he believes that God is the One who grants geniune faith to whom He wills, need not fret about whether God ever really chose him/her.

You still cannot know that your faith is genuine. How could you know that? Couldn't you be self-deluded into thinking the faith you believe was bestowed on you by God is genuine, but is really not at all?

The Calvinist, like the Arminian senses his freedom to pursue the things of God or neglect them. If the Calvinist finds himself choosing to neglect the means of grace, then let him, like the Arminian as well...be very concerned about that neglect and seek God for the power to get back on track.

There is no warr[a]nt, while working off the Calvinistic system of theology, for sitting around and wondering if God has written their name in the Book of Life. The call is to be active in pursuing after God in Christ.

Simply because the Calvinist isn't motivated by his own power to affect God, doesn't detract from the motivation of the cross. Which, of course, in all fairness, also motivates the Arminian. But like you have already implied, without the REAL ability to change God's future, you're not motivated enough, I assume...by the cross? Or...what are you implying then, by your assertions above?

There is that psychoanalysis again. True Arminianism is always God-centred, despite what many in the Reformed-Calvinist crowd might say or believe.

The perceived motivation for those in Reformed-Calvinist churches to examine themselves to discern whether or not they are elect is absurd. What if one should discover themselves to not 'currently' be among that unconditionally predestinated number? How is one to be exhorted to such a thing?

Well, I hope I have already answered this in my remarks so far. What you're doing is: you're peering into Calvinism from outside, then guessing that Calvinists must sit around and wonder about their election. But Calvinists do not do this. At least ones with any level of maturity in the Scriptures. Calvinists are happy to know that they cannot affect God's future. That God will get His way, with or without the Calvinist and his choices.

This does not mean that the choices are worthless, it just means that God transcends man's choices and has taken all of them into account before creation, all things passing through the Divine will and God is bringing it all to pass as it pleases Him.

'Taken [all the choices of mankind] into account before creation'? This sounds similar to a generic brand of Arminianism. It seems to me you're writing of God's foreknowledge, but Calvinism is more concerned with God's eternal decrees. In this view, God's foreknowledge is simply his advance knowledge of all the events that will take place in accordance with his decrees, ie, foreknowledge is the byproduct of foreordainment.

The truth is that God does not bestow some supposed gift of faith on some.

[1]That's the truth, is it? [2]Where did you get this truth from? [3]Is it just something that resonates with your sense of fair play or did you exegete it from Scripture?

(1) Yes.
(2) The Scriptures and some nifty Arminian theological works.
(3) Both.

He does not predestine individuals to believe the gospel.

My Bible says that He does. But then we both know that we can explain away the other's proof texts. So I won't bother you with verses like Acts 13:48or Ephesians 1:5or Revelation 17:8or Romans 8:30.

Predestination is a biblical concept. Open theism has a real problem in dealing with these passages, and this is one of the major reasons I abandoned it (I had only held it tentatively in the first place).

The issue is how predestination and salvation relate: (1) Is it an irresolvable mystery? (2) Is it some kind of antinomy? (3) What is it based on?

To the last question, Calvinists say it is based on God's good pleasure alone; his unconditional decree. It is predestination of individuals unto belief in Christ.

The Arminian answer is that believers are predestinated; it is in accordance with God's foreknowledge. God has decreed to save those who believe and persevere in faith in Christ. This is his good pleasure, it is God's sovereign choice; it was not imposed upon him by any being. The issue is not over God's sovereignty, but how God has chosen to exercise that sovereignty. Some think that the Arminian concept of predestination is redundant (eg, Pinnock), but I think that is what Scripture teaches.

Of course, It could be that neither the Calvinist nor the Arminian approach is completely correct on the matter.

Grace is God's gift, and he sovereignly chose to require man's faith in Christ's blood as a prerequisite to receiving justification (remission of sins) and regeneration (ie, a spiritual resurrection), along with repentance and baptism for receiving such. Faith, repentance, and confession of Christ must be continual until the end of one's probation, ie, they must be persevered in. This could by no means be done apart from God's preserving power (see 1 Pet i. 5), but all the same, God does require us to persevere in faith. He does not do all of this for us. God is faithful and he requires faithfulness. There is no antinomy in all of this. If Calvinism is not true, then there remains a strong possibility that some (perhaps many) are being lost or are in danger of losing their salvation upon this deceptive doctrine that God elects some to belief and wills the rest to remain in unbelief. God does not prevent salvation from any who hears his gospel.

Well, this is all just good Arminian assertion.

(I would say it's biblically founded assertion.)

You say it has nothing to do with a belief in human autonomy.

I don't recall saying that.

Answer me this then: [1] do you believe that you have the power within you to see to it that more souls will be in heaven to praise God forever? [2] That God is dependent upon you for your willingness or lack thereof to get busy saving souls?

(1) More souls may be lost by my negligence, yes.
(2) God is only 'dependent' on humans if he has chosen to be so in whatever capacity or situation it might be.

You see, the Calvinist is confident that God will not lose any of His foreknown, predestined sheep. This is no license to sit on one's hands and do nothing to promote the Gospel. For the Calvinist knows that to do so, would be to end up as one who is treated like the srevant who hid his talent in a buried hole.

I believe there may be, and have been, perhaps numerous Calvinists who have lived lives inconsistent with where it would seem their beliefs would lead them. There are many more, however, where this may not be the case, and that is dangerous.

You have said that you consider Calvinism to be dangerous, but [1] what about a doctrine that implies that Satan or someone else, might actually prevent God from keeping His own unto the end? Given your Arminian views, as you have expressed them (for I realize that not all Arminians can be lumped together), [2] it seems to me that someone might come along and use their LFW to foil some great plans that God had for you. That's dangerous stuff to believe.

(1) You see, I believe this is where you misunderstand Arminianism. We do not believe that Satan, evil angels, or any man can take one from the Father's hand. Solid Arminianism always has great confidence of God's preserving power to keep his own. But we, on the other hand, believe that a saved one is free to walk and God will let him. God hates this, but his integrity will not allow him to cling to one who is no longer willing to be his. (I should note that there are various conceptions of apostasy within genuine Arminian circles, but I'll not enter that discussion in this space.)

(2) Throughout the book of Acts, Luke records the preservation of Peter, John, and Paul from the devices of wicked men who, I believe, were doing so of their own free will. Sometimes God allows horrific events to befall his people, and sometimes he miraculously intervenes. In the end, God is sovereign, and nothing can ever thwart his ultimate purposes. (In fact, this is where I believe Calvinism is right to emphasise the victoriousness of God instead of this weak, pitiful, handwringing stuff some Arminianisms might be inclined to espouse.)

Your view cuts both ways. If you can actually get more people into heaven, then it follows that people can actually ruin God's plan to save someone. That even as Jesus called out the 12 (with Judas being called to fulfill the Scriptures), someone might have stepped in and ruined Jesus' attempt to save the 11 and preserve them unto the end.

It is true that God has decreed and wills only to save those who believe and persevere unto the end in Christ. I see no good way to get around this from the New Testament.

To All In Closing:

It was basically Calvinism that caused (pardon the pun) me to get involved in theology and take the reading and studying of Scripture much more seriously. For that, I will always be indebted to Calvinism. Calvinist works to this day challenge my thinking and are a constant and humbling reminder that I in no manner have it all figured out.

Commonly those in the Reformed-Calvinist community will accuse those on the outside of not understanding their doctrines or their systematic theology. All too often this is indeed the case. On the other hand, t believe I can now resonate with many of them, for it seems to me that a fair number of intelligent and well-studied Calvinists cannot get beyond viewing Arminianism as a man-centred religion that does not believe in the sovereignty of God or in his ultimate victory over evil. We need to understand each other better, and for my part, I am trying. Naturally, there always will be a sort of antagonism between Calvinists and Arminians, but we need to move forward in our discussions and our study. We should not spend all our time reading our favourite authors of our favourite systematic theologies, but should also periodically embark on seriously reading theological works from quality authors from the other side.


Postscript:

My apologies for the very late response to GoBahnsen, and my thanks for his response.

[bridgeforsale]

Well, it would only be true in an instrumental sense, as the apostle Paul thought of himself. In 1 Corinthians ix, he speaks of his becoming all things to all people that he might save some. He entertained no illusions. He knew that not all would be believe and so be saved, but there is no allusion in this chapter regarding his preaching ministry that the reason only some (not all) would be saved is because of God's unconditional decree to bestow faith on some. (Yes, this is an argument from silence, but it is still interesting to note.) In 1 Cor iii, Paul writes of God giving growth to the Word (v 6), but Paul nevertheless views ministers of the gospel as co-labourers, or 'fellow workers' (v 9). Your motivation for sharing the good news was probably just a bit confused, or tainted with self-centredness. Only God knows; I cannot judge the matter.

Rem:

I think God's eternal decree was to save all of us who are in Christ.

Grace is universally applied. When Christ was resurrected He drew all men to Himself through the power of the Spirit, which came after Him. The atonement and reconciliation given by Christ's sacrifice was an expression of God's grace. By caveat that our sins are no longer counted against us we are given the divine energy by the Spirit to overcome our total depravity to a level sufficient to seek Christ.

Those who will seek Christ are given faith; these are the elect (or sheep) whom God foreknew through His divine omniscient foreknowledge. We are given to Christ if we endure; again God foreknew all who will endure in faith to the end. Those who endure will never be snatched from His hand.

The atonement and reconciliation given by God through the sacrifice of His only begotten Son was an unmerited gift we neither deserved or did anything to merit. Whether we did anything good or bad is of no matter; we have access to faith by grace not because of works, but because of Him who called. God teaches everyone; those who listen and learn are those whom God foreknew, predestined, and glorified.

Do you agree?


AW

[George Blaisdell]

...There is no allusion in this chapter regarding his preaching ministry that the reason only some (not all) would be saved is because of God's unconditional decree to bestow faith on some.

In 1 Cor iii, Paul writes of God giving growth to the Word (v 6), but Paul nevertheless views ministers of the gospel as co-labourers, or 'fellow workers' (v 9).

1Co 3:9
θεου γαρ εσμεν συνεργοι
θεου γεωργιον
θεου οικοδομη εστε

FOR WE ARE GOD'S SYNERGIZERS...
God's work...
God's household...
Are YOU...

That Greek word: συνεργοι - When you spell it out in the Roman alphabet, is SYNERGOI, the plural of synergos, which is a synergizer, or synergy itself...

Calvinists frequently do not like this very good Biblical term...It transliterates as co-worker, and one who co-operates [another transliteration] is a synergist... The Gospel message is "Behold! The Kingdom of God is AT HAND! Repent and be baptized!" REPENTANCE is what we can DO to work with God... And Greg already knows that to SIN is to WORK AGAINST God... He simply wants to take away man's ability to choose the one or the other, and thereby relieve man of his moral responsibility...

Look - This whole of creation was a free act of God in Love... God loves His Creation in freedom... To sin is to turn away from God... Which despises God's gift... And assaults God's creation, for indeed, all creation fell with Adam... Creation was created in Holiness... This is what was lost in the Garden... And the Grace of holiness went with it, and we were given in its stead the grace of labors in flesh of skins, that we should repent and turn back to God, and regain the Garden... And in Christ, in His Holy Body, we should even rise above Adam who fell... For he was not a member of the Body of our Lord when he sinned...

Arsenios

[bridgeforsale]

1Co 3:9
θεου γαρ εσμεν συνεργοι
θεου γεωργιον
θεου οικοδομη εστε

FOR WE ARE GOD'S SYNERGIZERS...
God's work...
God's household...
Are YOU...

That Greek word: συνεργοι - When you spell it out in the Roman alphabet, is SYNERGOI, the plural of synergos, which is a synergizer, or synergy itself...

Calvinists frequently do not like this very good Biblical term...It transliterates as co-worker, and one who co-operates [another transliteration] is a synergist... The Gospel message is "Behold! The Kingdom of God is AT HAND! Repent and be baptized!" REPENTANCE is what we can DO to work with God... And Greg already knows that to SIN is to WORK AGAINST God... He simply wants to take away man's ability to choose the one or the other, and thereby relieve man of his moral responsibility...

Look - This whole of creation was a free act of God in Love... God loves His Creation in freedom... To sin is to turn away from God... Which despises God's gift... And assaults God's creation, for indeed, all creation fell with Adam... Creation was created in Holiness... This is what was lost in the Garden... And the Grace of holiness went with it, and we were given in its stead the grace of labors in flesh of skins, that we should repent and turn back to God, and regain the Garden... And in Christ, in His Holy Body, we should even rise above Adam who fell... For he was not a member of the Body of our Lord when he sinned...

Arsenios

I think Rem agrees that we need to cooperate with grace (this is a pretty general Arminian assumption)? However, don't you think God decreed the fall? He bound us over to disobedience so He could have mercy on us all (Romans 11:32).

This is not say we blame God and not Adam for his disobedience. Adam had free will and the devil tempted him. There's a caveat though -- God knew how He created Adam and allowed the serpent in the garden. God always decreed the fall of man because He always intended to send Christ (from before the founding of the world). In the beginning there were only two people; and it's possible to predict with much greater accuracy (even perhaps know) the ultimate destination of two particles or beings thrust in a particular direction than it would be to know the destiny of thousands of particles (due to their interaction). With a limited number (say one or two) of particles it is possible to use classical mechanics to know its destination (if thrust in a certain direction). However, with numerous particles you eventually run into the problem of quantum mechanics.

In relativity one is in a different reference frame in time if they're moving faster (or slower) than others; relative to those other beings. An omnipresent God, therefore, is present in the past, present, and future simultaneously. However, omniscient foreknowledge cannot be had of a contingent possibility (the physical law of mechanics must be used).

On balance we can assume God knows everything that is possible to know and we can assume that He is omniscient. It's not that God is limited by the physical laws of the universe; it's that He created the physical universe (so it's laws are a reflection of Him). So I think it's safe to say God did indeed decree the fall of man.


AW

[George Blaisdell]

I think Rem agrees that we need to cooperate with grace (this is a pretty general Arminian assumption)? However, don't you think God decreed the fall? He bound us over to disobedience so He could have mercy on us all (Romans 11:32).

God has never decreed evil - What He decreed was: Freedom...

This is not say we blame God and not Adam for his disobedience. Adam had free will and the devil tempted him. There's a caveat though -- God knew how He created Adam and al/owed the serpent in the garden. God always decreed the fall of man because He always intended to send Christ (from before the founding of the world).

The sending of Christ was indeed always intended, and if man had not fallen, His coming would simply have been the elevation of man into Divinity by Grace [theosis] as indeed it now is... But because of the fall of Adam, Christ ascended on the Cross, suspended above the earth, drawing all UP to Him, for His presence is hell for sinners, and Life for the faithful...

In the beginning there were only two people; and it's possible to predict with much greater accuracy (even perhaps know) the ultimate destination of two particles or beings thrust in a particular direction than it would be to know the destiny of thousands of particles (due to their interaction). With a limited number (say one or two) of particles it is possible to use classical mechanics to know its destination (if thrust in a certain direction). However, with numerous particles you eventually run into the problem of quantum mechanics.

In relativity one is in a different reference frame in time if they're moving faster (or slower) than others; relative to those other beings. An omnipresent God, therefore, is present in the past, present, and future simultaneously. However, omniscient foreknowledge cannot be had of a contingent possibility (the physical law of mechanics must be used).

The laws of physics and their connundrums do not at all constrain their Creator...

On balance we can assume God knows everything that is possible to know and we can assume that He is omniscient. It's not that God is limited by the physical laws of the universe; it's that He created the physical universe (so it's laws are a reflection of Him). So I think it's safe to say God did indeed decree the fall of man.

Foreknowledge is not a decree. The laws of the physical universe are not a reflection of God Who created them, but are a creation... Would you say that the laws of the internal combustion engine are a reflection of the creative genius of mind of their creator? Or more to the point, that a Model T ford reflects [eg limits] the [creative] soul of Henry Ford? For we are but Model T's, who are imagining that we can limit Mr. Ford in our Model T understanding of the mechanics of our mechanical universe... And yet a Model T is inert and not alive, and even a skid-row bum has far more life than that rusting pile of steel and seat covers moldering in the barn...

Nor do you or I or anyone else know the Essence of God - We know only His energies and operations, for we fall into the category of that which is created, and God is UNcreated, and as God said to Moses, "No man can look upon my face and live..."

Arsenios

[The Remonstrant]

I think God's eternal decree was to save all of us who are in Christ.

I agree. God has decreed that all those persevering in faith in Christ will be saved.

Grace is universally applied. When Christ was resurrected He drew all men to Himself through the power of the Spirit, which came after Him. The atonement and reconciliation given by Christ's sacrifice was an expression of God's grace. By caveat that our sins are no longer counted against us we are given the divine energy by the Spirit to overcome our total depravity to a level sufficient to seek Christ.

(I am not all that convinced of the 'total depravity' doctrine at the moment. Cottrell offers some good reasoning for a partial depravity concept in his 'Faith Once for All' one volume systematic theology.)

Those who will seek Christ are given faith;

I do not agree with this statement. Grace is God's gift; faith is ours to receive salvation (ie, saving grace). If it were not for some measure of God's grace, however, none could believe, but it is resistable.

these are the elect (or sheep) whom God foreknew through His divine omniscient foreknowledge. We are given to Christ if we endure;

I find this interpretation questionable. None attain to glorification (ie, final salvation) unless they persevere in Christ, but whoever believes in Christ at any moment at any time is given to him, regardless if that same one perseveres or not. But if, by whatever means, one should fall away, that individual is no longer Christ's.

again God foreknew all who will endure in faith to the end. Those who endure will never be snatched from His hand.

I believe that, as long as one is in the faith, he cannot be snatched from the Father's hand, but he can leave at any time.

The atonement and reconciliation given by God through the sacrifice of His only begotten Son was an unmerited gift we neither deserved or did anything to merit. Whether we did anything good or bad is of no matter; we have access to faith by grace not because of works, but because of Him who called. God teaches everyone; those who listen and learn are those whom God foreknew, predestined, and glorified.

Do you agree?

Your comments regarding Christ's meritorious work on the cross and statements pertaining to faith and works, for the most part, I agree, yes. I also appreciate your reliance on God's foreknowledge in your theology in general. Classical Arminians should not be ashamed of their reliance on this doctrine.

[The Remonstrant]

I think Rem agrees that we need to cooperate with grace (this is a pretty general Arminian assumption)?[sic]

Yes, I do, and yes, this is a rather basic ground level Arminian assumption (in this, we agree to some extent with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy).

However, don't you think God decreed the fall? He bound us over to disobedience so He could have mercy on us all (Romans 11:32).

Not in any sense whatever except that he permitted it. However, I would avoid the phraseology of God 'decreeing' the fall at all costs. (I know this post was not directed to me, but I figured I'd give it a go anyhow.)

This is not [to] say we blame God and not Adam for his disobedience. Adam had free will and the devil tempted him. There's a caveat though -- God knew how He created Adam and allowed the serpent in the garden. God always decreed the fall of man because He always intended to send Christ (from before the founding of the world). In the beginning there were only two people; and it's possible to predict with much greater accuracy (even perhaps know) the ultimate destination of two particles or beings thrust in a particular direction than it would be to know the destiny of thousands of particles (due to their interaction). With a limited number (say one or two) of particles it is possible to use classical mechanics to know its destination (if thrust in a certain direction). However, with numerous particles you eventually run into the problem of quantum mechanics.

In relativity one is in a different reference frame in time if they're moving faster (or slower) than others; relative to those other beings. An omnipresent God, therefore, is present in the past, present, and future simultaneously. However, omniscient foreknowledge cannot be had of a contingent possibility (the physical law of mechanics must be used).

On balance we can assume God knows everything that is possible to know and we can assume that He is omniscient. It's not that God is limited by the physical laws of the universe; it's that He created the physical universe (so it's laws are a reflection of Him). So I think it's safe to say God did indeed decree the fall of man.

All this is much too much speculative for my taste, and again, I do not find it safe at all to say that God decreed the fall of man (at least as an Arminian).

[The Remonstrant]

Nor do you or I or anyone else know the Essence of God - We know only His energies and operations, for we fall into the category of that which is created, and God is UNcreated, and as God said to Moses, "No man can look upon my face and live..."

I believe this to be very sound.

[The Remonstrant]

Nor do you or I or anyone else know the Essence of God - We know only His energies and operations, for we fall into the category of that which is created, and God is UNcreated, and as God said to Moses, "No man can look upon my face and live..."

I believe this to be very sound.