Did God Cause the Fall of Man? A Response to Arminian Today Part 4

This is the 4th and final installment of a series of posts. I encourage you to go read parts 1, 2, and 3 as well as Arminian Today's article, "Did God Cause the Fall of Man."

In the final paragraph of his post Roy writes:

To me it is not a question of sovereignty as much as it is a question of God's love. If God truly loved humanity why would he want to grant by his own sovereign choice that Adam would Fall and that this would plummet mankind into a horrible existence marked by death, destruction, and decay?

This is a fair question that does need to be addressed by myself and others who hold my position that God predestined the fall of man. The question in my own words is, "how can a John 3:16 God predestine such a catastrophic event that would hurt so many people?" Let's look at how the Bible defines the love of God.

As I have written in the past, I do not believe that Calvinists can simply replace the word "world" that appears in John 3:16 with the word "elect." It seems to me that a natural reading of the text indicates a love of God for the world. However, I am troubled at the emphasis that the word "world" gets from so many people when discussing such a Christ centered verse. In light of the context it seems best to understand John 3:16 as a wonderful description of God's willingness to save people from such an evil world. Because the verses that follow 3:16 explicitly disallow for a universal understanding of salvation we must realize the difference between God's love for the world in a general sense and His love for those whom He has chosen to save.

It was important for me to go through all of that to make the distinction between God's love for the world and His love for the elect because I think we can clearly see how God's love fits perfectly with predestining the fall of man.

Here are 5 verses that show the greatness of God's love and the necessity of the fall for that love to be demonstrated:
Red= God's loving purpose.
Bold= Necessary consequence of the fall of man.

"Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you." (John 15:13-14)

"Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline..." (Revelation 3:19)

"In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:10)

"I have loved you,' says the LORD. But you say, 'How have you loved us?' 'Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?' declares the LORD. 'Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated." (Malachi 1:2-3)

"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." (Ephesians 5:25-27)

"For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:6-8)

Just to recap. God's love is shown in:
Death.
Reproof and discipline (which doesn't happen without sin).
Loving people who don't love Him.
In contrast to those whom He does not love.
Removing wrath that was meant for sinners (that's what propitiation does).
The Church (the church is a called out assembly of believers in Christ).
Sanctification and cleansing (which doesn't happen to perfect people).
Our Weakness.
Our Ungodliness.
Our Sinfulness.

When we allow God to speak for Himself through the Scriptures it is clear how His love is best demonstrated. I am willing to accept the Arminian claim that they do not hold to their views because of free-will but, rather, because of their understanding of the love of God. However, I disagree that the Arminian understanding of God's love is the correct understanding. The Bible displays God's saving love as amazing for 3 reasons: (1) it is a love for such vile sinners, (2) it is a particular love for those whom He chose to love, and (3) it is a love with an infinite cost, namely, the death of the Son of God.


I think it is good for people to engage in civil debate from time to time. Roy and I would disagree on this subject whether I wrote a response to his post or not so I didn't think it would hurt to voice my disagreement. If you have questions or comments (whether positive or negative) I would love it if you would post them in the comment section.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

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)

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

Did God Cause the Fall of Man? A Response to Arminian Today Part 2

This is part 2 of a series of posts in response to the post on the blog Arminian Today entitled "Did God Cause the Fall of Man?" I suggest you begin by reading Roy's post and my introduction to the series.

Because of the issue we are dealing with I think it would be helpful to begin with a couple of questions that can guide us.

Did God have a purpose in creating man?
If so, what was that purpose?
Did God intend for Christ to come into the world?

If God is a God worthy of our worship (and He most certainly is) He doesn’t just create haphazardly. The Bible clearly indicates that God is a God of purpose. He doesn’t only have purpose in the world now but He had purpose in the world when He created it. In short, God’s purpose in creation was (and is) His glory (Isaiah 43:7). God is most glorified through the work of His Son, Christ Jesus, who is the “radiance of the glory of God” (Hebrews 1:3), for whom and through whom He created everything (Colossians 1:16-18). The glory of God in Jesus Christ shines most brightly in the work that he has done for us in redeeming such vile sinners (Ephesians 1:6, 12, 14, 2 Cor. 4:6).

In the post to which I am responding Roy states,

“God did foreknow that Adam would fall but he did not force the Fall (1 Peter 1:20). God foreknew that Adam would transgress but he did not predestine the Fall.”

Sandwiched between two statements is his reference to 1 Peter 1:20,

“He [Christ] was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God” (1:20-21).

In no way does this text give the impression that God did not predestine the fall. One cannot separate what God foreknows from what he decrees, especially in the case of Christ. If Christ was foreknown in the same way that Roy says the fall of man was foreknown then God must not have even planned the incarnation. But I suggest to you that Christ was foreknown as the one who would come to save us from our sins. I suggest to you that God not only knew the fall would happen but that this fallen world is leading to the best of all possible worlds that will glorify God because of what He has done through the God-man Jesus Christ.

My confidence in this belief that God's purpose in creation was the same before and after the fall is not merely derived from logic or what I believe about God. What seals this belief for me is the continuity of the existence of the gospel before and after the fall. If this is true we can confidently say that the fall did not alter God's original intention in creation in any way. Here are a couple of examples:

Genesis 2:24 gives us a pre-fall institution of marriage. Certainly marriage was affected by the fall because Adam and Eve and all of their descendants would be marred by sin. However, the purpose of marriage was not changed by sin. Rather, the purpose of marriage was fulfilled because of the existence of sin. In Ephesians Paul tells us exactly what God's purpose has always been for marriage. After quoting Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31 Paul gives this new understanding to an old institution, "This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." The word "mystery" can be interpreted in the light of Ephesians 3:5 as something that was hidden to previous generations but now revealed.

In order for the argument that God "foreknew but did not predestine" something to make sense it should be demonstrated that God was not actively "predestining" something that was directly affected by the event in question. Revelation 13:8 tells us that the Book of Life was written before the foundation of the world. Not only that but it is the Book of Life of the Lamb who was Slain. For what purpose was the Lamb slain?

God's foreknowledge is not a passive taking in of the future. In fact, every instance of the word imply God activity and contradict the thought that He was passive.

Next week, in part 3, I will deal with the difference between God's decree of the fall and the charge that this would mean He "caused" the fall. In part 4 I will defend the Biblical concept of God's love in view of the fact that He predestined the fall of man.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

Did God Cause the Fall of Man? A Response to Arminian Today Part 1

Theology matters. It matters because it is the study of God. It matters because all of human history is tied up with the true God of the universe. Within Christian theology there are several disputed doctrines. There is hardly a doctrine that is not vital for saving knowledge of the gospel that has not been debated by faithful Christian men and women.

However, the fact that theology matters and that debate is important in settling issues does not negate the fact that humility, grace, and love should be characteristic of those debates. My attempt in this series is not to be mean spirited or hateful but, rather, loving and honest.

Roy, who writes the blog Arminian Today, is a good Christian guy. I discovered his blog after he commented on Jason Lapp's blog and Jason told me I had to look it up. I found Roy to be a good writer with a high view of God and Scripture and a gracious and loving tone. One thing about the blog struck me as odd, it was Arminian. Many of you have probably never heard a positive definition of Arminianism. Most probably know it as "not Calvinism" which is a good start but not a fair summary. However, rather than using this post to define Arminianism for you I simply commend Arminian Today for your research. I agree with many of the things Roy writes and appreciate even the things with which I would respectfully disagree. The point I want to make is that I had never read an Arminian that writes so much like my Calvinist friends and influences. It's great! I hope that you will read Roy's writing with the same discernment I expect you to use when reading my writing (which should be a lot!).

My next three posts will be a response to his article, "Did God Cause the Fall of Man?" Please read my tone as loving and honest. I will occasionally say that I flat out disagree with his interpretation or use of particular passages of Scripture. That does not mean that I am trying to be hateful or mean, it simply means that I disagree with him. This is a true response to him because he is fully aware of it. I hope that he can get the time to read this and respond a little but I have told him that it is not expected of him because he has a lot on his plate right now.

The fall of man is described in Genesis 3 and Romans 5:12-21. This is important stuff because I am making the case that God predestined the very event that put this world in a tailspin of sin and death. However, I see the Bible as presenting a God that decrees this kind of world so that He can rescue it for His glory.

Here is how the series will go:
Part 2- God Predestined the Fall
Part 3- Did God "Cause" the Fall?
Part 3- The Demonstration of God's Love After the Fall

Please read Roy's article before reading my response.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen