Like I said on my blog, it's not that you and I would differ on the end result, or on the vast majority of what the scriptures say on this topic, but how we work out the implications of what scripture says.

Really, all you seem to be saying is that God sets up dominoes in a pattern that he wants/designs, knocks the first one over, and then the rest do this "providential will" (which they didn't really have choice in). In the other way God knocks each domino over individually.

Besides that, and if I was to argue against your view which there is really not that lot of reason to, except that it's fun to do, I would ask how you can argue for secondary causes (as your view will need to have) when dealing with the creator and sustainer of the universe?

 

The grand difference between the two apologies, is that in the first God does something that He Himself calls sin in the word of God - he causes someone else to sin. In the second apology, God is one step removed from sin by virtue of giving genuine authority to man. When Adam transgressed God's expressed will he did not transgress God's permissive will.

Perhaps a better domino analogy would be that God creates a domino out a fragile crystal, with an uneven base such that unless He keeps his hand on it, it will fall over and shatter into splinters. God created the domino to shatter, and even set it up for the fall - but the fall itself is not God's fault, it falls because it was designed to fall, and not because God knocked it over. Had God knocked it over, he would be culpable, but since it fell over by itself, it has no one to blame but itself.

And even that analogy falls short. ;-)

 

That's funny...

I just told someone this very concept of God's sovereignty the other day.

Crazy.

 

Oh and now that I think of it... my blog URL changed... "holding-fast.blogspot.com"

 

Daniel, I would agree with your second assessment to a point, with the exception of your implied understandings of election, etc.

I believe most non-calvinist's would hold that view of God's sovereignty. Yet sadly most of the Calvinist's I have read on the blogosphere tend to line up under model #1.

It is impossible to deny that God did indeed create Adam with an ability to sin (disobey His command)and yet without understanding the ultimate purpose of this creative act we fail to fully comprehend the nature of God.

Surely Adam would have never sinned had not Satan directly intervened and tempted Eve in the garden. Only in the Church as the bride of Christ can we see the fulfillment of God's ultimate desire.

I really enjoyed reading this post!

 

God is sovereign...

;-)

 

This was a good read today. I have something more to chew on now. I have a feeling all of this is to showcase His glory, and mercy, sort of a way to display all that He is, so even when I sin, I know that even the angels must be amazed at His mercy toward such a fallen creature. Such a wonderful thought, and very comforting, too.

 

When you say that God, in the second situation is one step removed from causing Adam to sin, your hiding behind the secondary cause argument that really cannot work with God. God created the universe in a certain fashion knowing what the results of that would be. He created Adam with certain psychological dispensations. God really rigged the deck, he designed the game board the way he wanted it and the pieces as well. Adam's sin cannot be placed on a secondary cause, since God lined up all those secondary causes, which is why I think the other view is more consistent.

Although I don't often recommend Vincent Cheung (as I don't agree with his approach on a lot of things), he does do a good job on this issue I think: http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/05/31/the-author-of-sin/

 

God created the universe in a certain fashion knowing what the results of that would be. He created Adam with certain psychological dispensations. God really rigged the deck, he designed the game board the way he wanted it and the pieces as well.

I think we are both agreed on this.

Where we seem to be at odds is that you suggest that Adam's sin cannot be Adam's unless it is first God's, and I say that that while that might be one way of looking at God's sovereignty, it isn't a necessary way, nor is it the conclusion I would jump to given the character of God as described in scripture. I question whether the God who has declared that He will not condemn the son for the sins of the father, would simultaneously condemn Adam because God's sovereignty makes Him the cause of Adam's sin.

I find it much easier (and more consistent with the biblical record of God's character) to speculate that God designed Adam so that Adam could succeed or fail, even if God knew that Adam would eventually fail - and that creating Adam "thus" would not be equal to directly causing Adam to sin. Giving Adam the choice put the moral responsibility into Adam's hands - made Adam, and only Adam culpable for his own sin - even if God knew, as I say, that Adam would do so.

The parent who allows his child to attend skating lessons is not morally responsible for the child's bruised rump, just because the parent understood beforehand that in learning to skate the child would likely, and even eventually, fall. The child, and only the child is to blame for their own fall - even if the parent knew it was coming. Likewise, the parent is not evil for allowing it to happen.

There is room, I think, to understand God's sovereignty as being sovereign in effect, but without making God morally responsible for sin.

I am reminded of the villain in the animated movie "The Incredibles" - recall that he manufactured a hero slaying robot, which he himself controlled, so that after it had defeated any and all comers, he could come in and save the day. I am reminded specifically of the seen where Mr. Incredible marvels at the idea of creating a foe expressly for the purpose of showing up to defeat it - marvels that such an empty glory could be pursued by any living person.

In the first scenario, we have something similar to that: God forcing all of humanity to sin in order that He might condemn all of humanity, for the expressed purpose of showing "mercy" to some of those victims of His former malice. That kind of "mercy" doesn't sit right with most people, not just because it is contrary to everything we know about God's character from scripture - but also because it is plainly a false mercy. I think that is why most people reject the first scenario.

That being said, the second scenario just one alternative to the first - I like it because it explains everything the first scenario explains, without turning God into a tryant to do so.

 

Jim - very, very few Calvinists hold to the first scenario. Most Calvinists are closer to the second view.

Frank - I updated your blog link

JD - amen.

Marcian - excellent!

 

In reading this post, twice now, I thought about the importance of relationship in the balance of the idea. I read a book once (A God to Call Father) in which the author had an interesting take on the fall - he pointed out that Adam and Eve hadn't come to God to admit they'd screwed up once they realized the truth of it. They chose to hide; they chose fear over love in their relationship to Him (on top of the pride they'd already committed). They didn't respond honestly to God's first and kind communication after the sin had committed. His desire for loving, free will relationship was denied at that point. I know that this is true in my relationships with my kids - it is an entirely different scene when they don't come to me with a problem they caused. Coming to me tells me that they've already swallowed their pride and are willing to submit and cooperate with the solution. Hiding is a form of a hard heart - more dangerous than the mistake itself because the choice to operate independently is reinforced and brings in suspicion about future choices.

This element I am describing is what helps me see how the human burden of sin that God set up can be so great - Hell, literally, for billions of souls.

I hope I am decipherable? Maybe you were implying this anyway, but I didn't catch it.