I’ve never seen this said better–and maybe I could have avoided some past misunderstandings (on other forums) if I’d been able to say it as well.
Maybe (and maybe not.)
Thank you Jason.
MODERATION EDITING
**MODERATION EDITING
John stated something to the extent that Jason believes in a weak God and Adam’s sin was not a fall but a plan!**
After critiquing Jason’s message, it would only be fair that I share my thoughts. These are thoughts of a great God with a deterministic love for His creature. This creature, in the beginning was made in futility and filled with vanity and frustration(Rom8:20), unable to even measure the meaning of love. Adam is about to get a lesson whereby he will have the necessary experience, whereby to measure the very Divine love that has formed the plan and purpose, for every event and moment of his existence.
These are my thoughts of late and I have not taken the time to share background scripture. scientific details or formal definitions. This is also the first time I have attempted to type these thoughts out. I do so, as to contrast the belittling views of God and the grandiose descriptions of man some hold and share here.
Let me begin by saying, Adam was not created immortal. “Immortality” by definition is not having the possibility of death what so ever in ones future. “Mortality” conversely is the possibility of a future death. Looking at God, as an absolute sovereign with a perfect unwavering deterministic plan to the Nth degree, mortal Adam is sure to die. From the get go, Adam’s mortality or possibility for death, as seen from God’s point.of view is a 100% possibility, a real surety. Thus, although Adam has not yet died he has death reigning in him. Dieing Adam shall die. I believe there is something in Hebrews to that effect.
We could go down the same path with regard to sin. From God’s point of view, Adam is going to sin. Sin is in Adam’s makeup due to his sinful flesh. Adam’s corruptible body is made of the very material of the disordered cosmos.(re;physics laws of the universe). Sin, although not manifested outwardly yet, is excited within Adam, by the law “do not eat” (Paul writes about the law stirring up sin). Adam is bound to sin and He does, just as planned and purposed by God. I like to say, “there wasn’t a fall but rather a plan. A plan purposed in perfect love for a perfect benevolent end.”
There is so much more I could go into, however I will limit my words. I want to speak of the tension Adam felt and incidentally we also feel. I am also referring to Adam, before the tree of knowledge. There is a tumult in Adam, caused by a corruptible body, playing host to God’s pure breath/spirit that was breathed into it. Added, there is the natural law that is written on Adam’s heart by the residing Spirit. This natural law urges Adam to be perfect, as God is perfect, to be as God. Adam is frustrated with this tension. Prepared by this mixed state of vanity, tension and frustration, Adam is made naturally inclined to reach for the forbidden fruit, which is said to make him like God. He must however fail in this endeavor to be as God. For first ,Adam learn of his own futility in the face of the almighty. The opposites of “futility” and “all might” are then piled upon, with the evil things and opposing good things, gained from the TKGE. Man must have opposites ,from which by, to measure and know things. To make an end of this message, we finally have God, who’s reach is not short like Adams, reaching down and even stooping, to lift Adam and all his progeny to become Godly through Christ Jesus. Amen.
These are my thoughts, shared off the cuff. They have been rolling around in me for a some months and as I said, this is my first to attempt to write them out. I ask you, to feel free to applaud them or rail on them. Better yet, maybe say nothing and think on them.
God bless you,
John
Which is why I clarified the same thing in discussing it, just in more detail. 
Still, I was about to discuss the story and its principles, so I wanted people to get past the specific form of the details so they wouldn’t be hung up on how literally historical the story was supposed to be. (It wasn’t intended as a correction against you.)
Pretty sure I said much the same thing. Just in more detail.
Actually, I’m pretty sure that I wrote (more than once??) that I agree that God has final authoritative responsibility for the fall, and that He accepts and even insists upon that responsibility.
What I was doing was distinguishing between kinds of responsibility; thus as in the quote you were replying to. There is a difference between the responsibility inherent in creating an environment for the fall, and the responsibility inherent in kicking someone to fall, even when creating the environment comes along with uniquely possible knowledge about what other persons in that environment will do as a result. But I can’t tell that we’re actually disagreeing with one another on this.
Just as the father in the atheist’s example never expected something that wouldn’t happen. On the contrary, the atheist’s whole point is that the father expected the child to fail and so chose accordingly (not to buy the ticket). What the father in your atheist’s example does do, is talk to his children about a conditional which the father knows (or anyway expects, being less than omniscient) will be fulfilled one way instead of the other. The same principle would hold well enough if the father was omnisciently sure rather than only confidently expectant.
You seem to be saying much the same thing. I don’t see that we’re “differing” in our views yet. You’ve already clarified that you aren’t talking about the kind of responsibility where God kicks us down to fall, and that was the kind of responsibility I was denying while still affirming God’s authoritative share of responsibility for what happened.
No, not regardless. The whole point is that the father already knows what the children will freely choose, thus he can act beforehand in regard to that.
This is one form of what story tropers call a Batman Gambit, by the way; basically it’s a BG which relies on a special variant of being Crazy Prepared–also a characteristic typical of Batman, of course. 
In one form of BG, Batman manipulates people into doing what he wants based on his competent expectation of how they’ll behave if he provides the right situation. In another form, Batman competently expects people to behave in one fashion instead of another given a situation, and competently expects or knows the situation will occur, and so acts beforehand in regard to what he expects will happen. The difference is that in the latter case, Batman isn’t manipulating the people themselves, he’s only Crazy Preparing based on his understandings of what they’ll do. I don’t deny God does the former kind of BG, but I’m denying He did it in the case of the Fall. I don’t deny God did, and does, the latter BG in regard to the Fall.
Note that there is testimony sometimes in prophetic scriptures to the effect of, “I’m going to win whether you do this or whether you do that,” which would be a Xanatos Gambit; but if God knows from omniscient perspective that they will in fact choose option B then He’ll already be acting in regard to that beforehand, and so we’re back to a Godly Prepared Batman Gambit again.
Now that I think about it, though, God’s actions may be better exemplified as a special variant of Xanatos Speed Chess. A true Batman Gambit has a lose-condition which the gambit-er would rather avoid; a true Xanatos Gambit has no lose condition because the gambit-er would consider any result a win. In Xanatos Speed Chess, though, the gambit-er intends to get result A, not result B, and so constantly makes omnipotent adjustments to arrive at the win result he intends to get. Godly Xanatos Speed Chess would amp this to the nth level by having God act super-temporally to arrive at the result He intends to get without simply nixing the contributions of the other players.
Put another way: one form of Batman Gambit would manipulate the contributions of the other players, while one form prepares based on the expected contributions of the other players. Either form could be Godly effective, but either one has a win to be achieved and a loss to be avoided. A basic Xanatos Gambit treats any contributions by the other players as a win. A series of Godly Effective Batman Gambits, though, where a substantial amount of the action is in cooperation with (not only manipulation of) the contributions of the other players, would be Xanatos Speed Chess. The fall of humanity (and of any other sentient species, or number of individuals within a species), would be one place for God to play a Godly Batman Gambit as part of a Xanatos Speed Chess game. (Unless hyper-Calvinist determinism is true, in which case there is no Xanatos Speed Chess except insofar as God is playing against Himself.) The question is, what kind of Godly Effective Batman Gambit did God play there? One that manipulated humans to fall? Or one that acted in regard to knowledge that humans would fall?
I affirm the latter, and deny the former.
Because God chose not to force the fall, according to my picture?
The ability to merely force effects is admittedly a strength, but it’s the shallowest kind of strength; it doesn’t even require rational direction. Rationally directed force is superior to non-directed force, admittedly, but is still shallow compared to the strength which creates and allows for strength in others than itself.
The strength of a tyrant, even a benevolent tyrant, is less than the strength of true love. Something tyrants have a hard time believing, admittedly. 
Which is why tyrants, as tyrants, cannot understand and accept the sacrifice of the cross, and perceive the graciousness of God for even their own sake as a faulty weakness and as folly–a folly they would certainly never volunteer for!
This, by the way, is another of several reasons why I am not impressed by the supposed superiority of a God Who neither creates no other real persons, and so is in no way really a Father (but rather at best a mere author like myself creating merely fictional characters), nor is Himself more than one real person. The strength to create illusions or only mere modes of persons, is nothing compared to the strength of creating real sons and daughters who themselves make their contributions to history: a self-sacrificing strength that is perfected in what the world accounts as weakness, a strength strong enough to choose and to voluntarily bear vulnerability.
Just like on the cross.
I realize, of course, that you are not advocating the tyranny of merely forcing effects on other people. But that’s only because you end up largely or altogether denying the real existence of people other than God. If God has not created other people, no sons and daughters but only puppets, then there is no tyranny in merely forcing effects on those illusions or, at best, on modes of Himself. That is the cheapest kind of strength, however. It costs God nothing to merely pretend to have children. The cross becomes a dramatic fiction at best as well, a story God tells to Himself (to alleviate His boredom I suppose), about a Son that did not exist as a Son, and the loyalty of that merely fictional Son to a Father, Who would have been loyal to that Son had that Son ever really existed (but didn’t).
Real children cost something; and a God Who can and does pay for real children, is stronger than a God Who never creates real children (much less Who is not in His own self-existence self-begetting and self-begotten, a real interpersonal unity.)
I approve the above post! 
Jason,allow me to change my earlier statement by one word;
God almighty! I believe you have painted a picture of one of the stupidest God’s, I have read of in a long time, Mr Pratt.
God’s omniscience makes impossible, even the thought that God could make a man, a child, and a son, with out knowing precisely, every choice that man, that child and that son would ever make. And further more, God knows every choice, even before He creates such a man, a child, and a son. In this all choice becomes God’s choice.
To make another point, you my friend, with your “tyrants call” foolishly make at odds, God’s all knowing nature with His all mighty nature. You place a waging war within God Himself, the likes of no war, ever seen.
God being God, and man being man, is so simple, that the vain and intellectually wise, seeking for loft of self, can never realize it.
"At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, “I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.”
Pratt, I believe even with your faulty view of God, you please God, by giving credence to His well-pleasing way as described above. You my friend are not a free man but like me, a servant to His ways and this is why we call each other, “man” and “brother.”
Is God a sentient Being, or a stoic Force?
It appears Jason believes God to be a sentient Being, while John has a stoic (although benevolent) Force.
The nature of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence operates differently in a sentient Being compared with a stoic Force.
One problem, Adam was not dying prior to disobedience. If you equate Paul’s words that “when the law came sin sprang to life and I died” then you would have to conclude, Adam died before he died. But that makes no sense.
Got to think like a Hebrew, my friend
Aug, After trying to read Pratt’s prose today, I am completely exhausted and my mind is jelly. I will try to explain “dying died” tomorrow, Lord willing. Always, I try to use “Lord willing” because you can never use it enough, when amongst the Clan of Freewilly.
John, no rush my friend.
If the Hebrews thought that Adam was dead before he died then I would argue, they’re confused. Hebrews should think like me 
Thanks Jim 
Thanks for your patience, Aug. First thing this morning I worked on this response to your objection. Rather than copy my ealier post to which you are referring, I will give you the liberty to go back to revisit the context, in which I subject “Adam’s dying”
Genesis 2:17
“but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Transliterated from the Hebrew this familiar verse would be:
“Tree knowledge good evil eat day eat die die”
From Strongs:
Gen 2:17 But of the treeH4480 H6086 of the knowledgeH1847 of goodH2896 and evil,H7451 thou shalt notH3808 eatH398 ofH4480 it: forH3588 in the dayH3117 that thou eatestH398 thereofH4480 thou shalt surely die.H4191 H4191
The Hebrew word which more correctly translated “die die” is “muwth-muwth”. “Muwth-muwth” which in the KJV is translated “surely die” would be more clearly written as “dying you shall die.”
As I shared in my message Adam has a predisposition to death (dying) and eating of the tree "Adam emphasises his dying state by figuratively putting the nail in his coffin.
As an extra note Aug, a commentator by the name of Hodge writes with regards to this verse and the problem with the usage “in the day”:
"With regards to the Hebrew word yom for day in Genesis 2:17, it refers specifically to the action of eating and not “dying die.” Solomon used an almost identical construction in 1 Kings when referring to Shimei:
1 Kings 2:37
“For on the day you go out and cross over the brook Kidron, you will know for certain that you shall surely die ; your blood shall be on your own head.”
This verse uses yom (day) and the dual muwth just as Genesis 2:17 did. In Genesis 2:17, yom referred to the action (eating) in the same way that yom refers to the action here (go out and cross over). In neither case do they mean that was the particular day that death would come, but the particular day they did what they weren’t supposed to do.
Solomon also understood that it would not be a death on that particular day but that Shemei’s days were numbered from that point. In other words, their (Adam and Shimei) actions on that day were what gave them the final death sentence—they would surely die as a result of their actions. Therefore, the day, in Genesis 2:17 was referring to when Adam and the woman ate, not the day they died." (end quote)
In closing, as I said in my earlier post, I have been currently working this out. Thus, I give reference to Christine’s previous argument on this forum in discussions of the resurrection. She believe she stated “dying died” referred to the spiritual state. There is I very good argument for this also. I will have await more leading on that, thinking maybe “dieing died” could be both spiritual and physical, the spiritual reality and the natural shadow.
Anyway, be blessed my friend and thanks for asking, By the way, love your signature and always enjoy, Jim Rome.
John
To be fair, I don’t think John believes God to be only an impersonal stoic force. Persons, after all, can force effects, too, and John routinely and consistently treats God as being personal.
It’s other persons whom John seems to treat as being, at bottom, not really real persons, neither sons nor daughters of God but only puppets determined by God to react to stimuli in various ways. But that is probably because, in correctly rejecting the ontological overreach of the hardcore libertarians, he thinks the only other option is that God only created the biological equivalent of Furbees. Thus if anyone affirms derivatively dependent but still real personhood, not independently existent of God, that person must actually be trying to claim independent existence from God–thus be vainly and proudly trying to put themselves up over against God in denial of His omnipotence (and omniscience, too, for that matter).
This explains why John somehow thinks that my continued explicit and significant affirmation of God’s omniscience counts as a denial of God’s omniscience; and somehow thinks my continued explicit and significant affirmation of God’s omnipotence (beyond the mere application of force to induce reactions) counts as being infinitely weaker than omnipotence; and somehow thinks both these affirmations put together count as testifying to a war between God’s omnipotence and His omniscience. 
It’s because I affirm the existence of real persons other than God, which to John can only mean trying to claim such persons as being on the same level of independent existence as God. He rightly opposes that; but wrongly misunderstands me as though that’s what I’m claiming.
(Note: since a majority of the leadership board voted to ban John temporarily for his comment to me–a vote I rescinded myself from in order to avoid conflict of interest, but informally recommended they not do–a lack of reply on his part should not be held against him.)
I’m late for the party as usual, but I still wanted to say welcome to the board ACE.
Even as an open theist who doesn’t think God foreknows (or that omniscience entails knowledge of) a single, complete, non-branching story about the way the future will go, it still seems to me that the (eventual) fall of humanity into sin was a certainty in God’s mind (so there’s no surprise when humans sin). It doesn’t need to be a predetermined thing in God’s will, nor foreknown in the traditional sense. It can be known to eventually occur based on the nature of human freedom over time.
Gotta go does up! I’m in a two week medical study!
Have fun,
Tom
Thanks Tom
Too much to read in this thread. I figure it all just loops around and back into itself again anyway.
Basically, I’d like to add another aspect to the discussion that may or may not have been spoken of. When God made us, he harbored no illusions that we would fall not only because he can see the future or knows us that thoroughly, but because there really is no other scenario. Creating beings out of mud is of course to create fallible beings who are prone to get dirty. In this sense I kind of agree with the doctrine of total depravity, but only to the degree that we’re talking about humans being helpless to be divine on their own. (“Goodness” being, in comparison, nothing but an illusion and something rather useless.) We were fallible, and thus faulty, from the very beginning, but that’s just because God’s not through creating us. In darkness we were formed, in light we will be revealed. God always deals in darkness before light. The Hebrew day started with the nighttime, just as a baby is first formed in the darkness of the womb before it ever sees the light of day.
I think that makes a lot of sense. It is pretty much what I have been trying to argue all along. There is no other explanation for the “natural evil” that has been occuring since long before the supposed fall.
That is similar to my understanding of St. Irenaeus: Adam and Eve were created as children, and (as typical of children) they got into mischief. Our gradual theosis is God helping us to grow up. Finally, we shall all be grown up (i. e., perfect). Eschatology is the finishing of creation. (Parenthetically, any finally lost being [whether in torments or annihilated] would mean that God’s creation never gets finished: an absurd supposition.)
Glad we’re on the same page then, Ace!
Precisely!
There’s another illustration that serves the point. We cannot live fulfilled lives or do the things we’re meant to (be good and obey Jesus), anymore than a cat can set the dinner table. We’re the wrong life form for that. Only God can do that through us. With Him inside of us, we can do the impossible. “With God all things are possible.” Just look at Jesus; a “mere man” yet He did things that no one else ever did, and in fact changed the very fabric of space-time. Why? Because He was God-in-the-flesh. “I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me shall do the things I have been doing. And greater things than these shall he do, for I go to my Father.”