Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Did God Cause the Fall of Man? A Response to Arminian Today Part 3

Now that I have made myself clear on the issue of whether or not God predestined or decreed that the fall of man would happen I must defend my position by answering Roy’s main question, "Did God cause Adam to fall into sin?" This is not an easy question to answer but I do believe we can look to the Bible for guidance. Continuing the quote from Roy’s post:
“The Scriptures clearly teach that God does not tempt men (James 1:13). Adam fell through the act of his own free will…But if there is really no such thing as free will then Adam fell because God essentially made him sin. This is the only rational response to the problem of Adam's sin.”

Before I can even address the majority of the content previously quoted I must make some distinctions that Roy does not make in his post. He writes, “Now to be fair, there are many Calvinist who would deny that Calvinism teaches that God caused the Fall. Most Calvinist would stop short of saying that God predestined the Fall of humanity…” (emphasis added).

Roy uses several words interchangeably that should be distinguished from one another. To predestine, to cause, to make someone do something, and to tempt are all different things. The fact that God predestined the fall to happen does not negate the fact that Adam willingly sinned against God.

One thing I like about Roy’s post is that he appeals to direct statements in Scripture. Though I certainly disagree with him on many of his conclusions I want to make it clear that he is most helpful when He goes to the inspired word of God and he does that quite often. It seems to me that his “knockout” verse is James 1:13. For the sake of context we will look at 13-15:
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

The seeming contradiction that Roy presents between this text and the idea that God predestined the fall can be resolved when we look at James’ definition of temptation. Look at the text again and you will see that temptation is defined as a luring and enticing which is done by a person’s own desire. This is remarkably similar to Genesis 3:6 which tells us that Eve desired the fruit. I am not arguing that God tempted Adam and Eve to sin against Him. I am arguing that His sovereign will was that the fall would happen for His plan and purpose, namely, to bring about redemption for His glory. So I reject the idea that God’s decree of the fall means He tempted anyone to sin or even forced them to sin.

Undoubtedly many of you are wondering how Adam and Even fell into sin by God’s decree apart from God being the one to somehow tempt or push them into it. My answer is simply that I don’t know what the nature of Adam’s will was in a pre-fall state. But I will say that I don’t think it is helpful to insist that he must have had the ability to go against God’s sovereign plan. I briefly demonstrated in a previous post that free will, as defined by Arminianism, is not described in the Bible. The existence of choices, wills, and responsibility does not necessitate the unrealistic view many hold of ultimate free will. So unlike some Calvinists and Arminians who have thought through these things before me I do not offer a positive explanation of what Adam’s will was like. The Bible is silent on how Adam was capable of sinning apart from being born into sin and so I am silent on the issue as well.

In conclusion, I think the question is too vague for a simple yes or no. In light of my distinctions I will answer this way: God did cause the fall in that He predestined that it would happen exactly the way it happened. It could not have happened any other way or (in the strictest sense) not have happened. He did not, however, cause the fall by being a direct agent in the execution of the temptation or the sin itself. Scripture speaks on the relation of God’s decree of sin and the murder of Christ in this way:

…for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. (Acts 4:27-28)

6 comments:

Crowm said...

Stephen,

Maybe I'm a bit slower than others but I'm not sure I understand your difference of the definition(s) between predestined or decreed. So, for me, it's not "clear."

I too believe God doesn't tempt anyone. James is clear that the desire to sin comes from me and you and etc. In other words, I choose to sin or obey.

You point out that "predestine, to cause, to make someone do something, and to tempt are all different things." And then...

Your words:
"I am arguing that His sovereign will was that the fall would happen for His plan and purpose, namely, to bring about redemption for His glory."

Really? God wanted man to sin? God wants us to rebel? Just so His glory would be revealed?

Stephen, you're well aware of that argument from Romans 5 (Grace) and 6. "What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means!"

You say God doesn't force man to sin and then turn around and say it's "God's sovereign will."

When we observe Adam in a "pre-Fall" state, we see that God called everything "good" or "very good". In other words, things were as they were supposed to be. Man walked with God (communed with Him) in the cool of the day etc. And then the Fall (man's rebellion)!

Your words again:

"But I will say that I don’t think it is helpful to insist that he must have had the ability to go against God’s sovereign plan."

Therefore, you have to argue for God wanting the sin to happen. I would have MAJOR problems with that my friend.

After posting here, I will look at the free will post you mention. I would agree in there being no "ultimate free will." But limited will is another view altogether.

Finally:

"God did cause the fall"

"He did not, however, cause the fall by being a direct agent"

Ugh!

JRL said...

Crowm,

The fall happened right?

Then how could it be outside of God's sovereign will? It had to be part of His will because it happened but that doesn't mean He caused the fall. When I sin (which is plenty) it's not outside God's sovereign will, right? But I know He did not cause it or tempt me.

Maybe I'm not understanding.

Also Stephen saying, "I am arguing that His sovereign will was that the fall would happen for His plan and purpose" does not translate into "God wanted man to sin". Wanted and would happen are two different terms. Stephen would be very wrong to say God wanted but it very correct and biblical to teach that it was not outside God's sovereign will.

Are we forgetting about the role Satan played in the fall? Just thinking out loud.

Grace upon grace,
JRL

Stephen B. said...

Crowm,

In reading your comment here and then the comment you left later on another post I was left with two options:

(1) Respond to your accusations.

(2) Delete your comment and allow dialogue at a future time.


Perhaps you don’t have time to correspond with me on this or you only meant that a dialogue could be held in the future on the other post. Regardless, I am going to go with option #1 because I believe that your objections are helpful and will benefit other readers.

I think your response emphasized my point that this subject is a big deal. I am not writing this as an exercise of intellect but I am writing what I truly believe. With that said I will write my actual response in a separate comment so I can keep these a little bit shorter.

Thanks man.

Stephen B. said...

Crowm,

You said a lot of things with which I agree. So I am going to focus as much as I can on things on which we would disagree.

Was the cross plan B? If you will not allow me the luxury of saying that I believe God’s plan was for something to happen and yet I do not believe He was the direct agent of causation in the event then I can’t allow non-Calvinists to say “the cross was not plan B” while being unable to affirm that God’s plan included Adam’s fall. So I lovingly ask you or any other person who objects to what I have written here to please explain where the gospel is in God’s plan for human history. The only consistent answer is that the cross was, at best, plan B.

I am disappointed that you didn’t respond to Acts 4:27-28. I would like to see the interpretation on this of someone who does not agree with my views on God’s sovereignty and man’s will. Could someone tell me how God didn’t will the murder of His Son?

I used Acts 4 as an example of God willing something that was executed by men. But even outside of Acts 4 I wonder if you believe that God ever wills (at some level) that sin occur? Because I see it everywhere in the Bible and yet I still believe that God hates sin. For example, see Genesis 50, Exodus 4:21, and 9:16, Deuteronomy 2:30).

The reason I didn’t hammer away with the many instances in the Bible where God clearly wills (at some level) sin is that I realize the Fall involves a man who was without sin at the time. Therefore, it is not as if God took a person who was already on the road to destruction and used them for His purpose. I don’t see God hardening Adam’s heart here, I see Adam sinning and God being angry with Adam for that sin. But I think the principle of your argument does apply. Does God ever will sin? It seems that He does...yet He still hates and punishes it.

You said, “Really? God wanted man to sin? God wants us to rebel?”

God’s plan included the sin of man. Perhaps a better way of saying it is that God’s plan for human history is what He “wanted” even though that included things that He hated. However, I still think you could push me to say that God “wanted” the Fall to happen, just not as if He was watching the events unfold and saying “YES! Way to go Adam!” because that is not what I mean at all.

Continuing your quote, “Just so His glory would be revealed?”

I also believe that God sent His Son to die for us “just so His glory would be revealed” and that He saved me from His wrath “just so His glory would be revealed.” Of all the things you said in your response this was the only one that greatly disturbed me.

Lastly, let me say that I agree with you and with the apostle Paul that it is a sinful, God hating attitude for one to say “let us sin that grace may abound.” But do Calvinists, Arminians, and all Christians in between affirm that the greatness of God’s grace is displayed in saving horrific sinners? Do we not also affirm the truth of Romans 5 that dying for a righteous man is something that some people would do but nobody would die for an unrighteous man? Yet “while we were yet sinners Christ died for us?” Come on man, Paul was talking about the application of that truth to our lives. I hate my sin much more than you hated this post (which seems to be a lot!) and I would never make the application of these truths in that way.

I'm sorry that I continue to frustrate non-Calvinists by saying God willed something and yet was not the direct cause. I guess I couldn't get around the Bible without allowing tension to exist between some of its teachings.

Like I said before, I think your arguments will be helpful for other readers. If you have the time please help me out and respond.


Grace and Peace,
Stephen

Crowm said...

Stephen,

Technology is a great thing. On the other hand, the impersonal way of writing and trying to hear "someone's heart" will always be challenging. I regret you thinking that I'm more frustrated than I really am. I believe I can disagree with someone without becoming frustrated. Maybe it was the term "Ugh"?

Anyway, when we began our discussion on your series of posts, I pointed out that there would be things on which we would probably disagree. Obviously, that's the case.

I have several Calvinist friends that I disagree with. But there comes a time where we simply agree to disagree and move on to something else. In other words, we're at an impasse. I would refer you to my comment on "Part 4".

I'll continue to read and possibly even post a comment or two. Again, I ask you to hear my heart and not be so defensive. I was truly attempting to understand what you believe.

Blessings Bro!

Stephen B. said...

Crowm,

The term “Ugh” did make me think that you were very upset. However, I wasn’t upset in my response; I was simply trying to respond to your arguments against my position. I welcome criticism as much at this moment as I did before. The reason I felt like I had to respond (and still think it was the best option) has everything to do with the fact that you presented serious objections. I want other readers to be able to see your objections and carefully weigh them against my own position. However, if I were to leave them without a response it would appear that I have no response to your objections. I am definitely OK with agreeing to disagree.

I said a lot of things in my response to you that could be taken as defensive or mean spirited (for some reason I think asking questions in the way I did can easily be taken that way) and even though I tried to find a way of writing that could look as kind as I wanted ultimately I don’t know that there was one. You’re welcome to continue commenting whether you want clarification, you object to my position on something, or any other reason. I enjoy comments whether they are affirming my beliefs or contradicting them. No harm, no foul my friend.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen