ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Philetus]

On a side note this thread recently eclipsed 70,000 page views! :up:

Amazing!

You may not be proud of everything in this thread but you can be pleased that TOL has been addressing a great need ... for grass roots communication!

Thanks Knight, for the vision and faithfulness, (and patients) to pull this off.

I still owe you!

One grateful,
Philetus

 

[Nang]

Posted by DFT_Dave
By his fate I mean that it was determined that he (Adam) would sin as well as perish.

Posted by Nang
Yes.

God knew the fate of Adam. God determined and ordained what Adam's fate would be. God did not cause Adam's sin.

Posted by DFT_Dave
The only way that God could know that Adam would sin before he was created, would be to ordain that he should sin,

Oh, I see . . .you think that God's foreknowledge of sin is the cause of sin.

Not so.

You are confusing the crime with the penalty.

Posted by Nang
No, God ordained Adam would surely die when he did sin. But the sin of disobedience to God's LAW is attributed only to Adam's action.

Do you see how you have contradicted yourself?

No. All I see is that you do not understand the difference between Godly foreknowledge and Godly ordination.

For example: God had foreknowledge of the treachery of Judas Iscariot, who was ordained by God to betray His Son.

Judas Iscariot is held responsible for his betrayal, despite God's foreknowledge of what he would do.

It's another contradiction to say that Adam is responsible for his sin even though it was ordained, determined, or by fate.

How can it be, when the Scriptures clearly attribute the cause of sin to Adam? (Romans 5:12)

Of course, Adam was responsible for his sin, even though God knew that He would sin.

I know your inner heart complaint . . .you are complaining that God did not prevent Adam, or any of the rest of us, from sinning. You are angry that God let any of us sin. How dare He not stop us!

And in the same breath, you want to remain a person possessing a "free" will, to do what you want at all times.

Well, either God prevents sinners from sinning according to their limited nature of dust; thereby proving He has created a world of fleshly robots . . .

Or man is responsible before God for his actions without interference from God above.

So what do you choose?


You are griping about how God made all of us. Rather than giving God credit and glory for saving any of us.

 

[Philetus]

Can we discuss what is lost and what is gained from each perspective?

OV would state God could not know, specifically by His own volition because He has the power to know. If I'm understanding correctly.

A nonOV position would state that God must know for He has Foreknowledge (some in differing perspectives would say exhaustive). Furthermore, He could not be competent if there were too many contingencies (this or a variance is leveled often toward the OV position).

So one side suggests an impossibility and claim that nonOV has God in a tyrannical position. The other, that God is much smaller and unable.

What I'd like to hear is exactly what is lost and what is gained in the respective viewpoints.

Here are a few leading questions but expound anything that is pertinent.

-If God does not know future exhaustively, how much does He know? Is it limited to determinism?

-If God made Adam with a faulty sin valve, did He know about it? Was it faulty? How is God impinged or expunged?

-What was necessary for man to have choice? What factor had to be part of Adam's makeup for this to work?

-How is God's omnicompetence accomplished if He does not know outcomes?

-How do you handle difficult passages like Revelation with interaction if the future is impossible to travel to? If it was not future, is it merely predictive or absolute?
How can you know?

-God promises in glory, that all tears and sorrow will be eliminated. We understand that sin will be erradicated also. How is this accomplished if we really do have freewill? Do we lose it at Heaven's doorstep?

I could post more, but I just want to get to a treatise on the OV that is a bit more cogent than just a mere thread post if possible.

In Him

Lon

Some good questions (at least the ones I think I understand).

It isn't a matter of how big, powerful, able God is, or any of those kinds of questions.

In the Open View, the future doesn’t exist. Did you get that? The future doesn’t exist. The history of the future hasn’t been written! OV trusts God not because God determines everything … past-present-future … or even because God sees or knows the future in detail, but rather because God is faithful to Himself and His creation. God can be trusted to do the right thing. It’s called faith in God, NOT faith in a determined future. Only what God determines HE will do in the future can be said to be KNOWN with absolute certainty, because God is faithful and can be trusted to accomplish His intentions. What we must wrestle with is what the Bible actually says with absolute certainty that God will do in the future. Here there are many opinions and interpretations of scripture. One frustration OV proponents face is that the Open View is often forced into all kinds of pre-formulated systems and theologies. Some, like Calvinism, are just irreconcilable to the Open View. That simple! Hence, some of your questions (though understandable in other contexts) just don’t make sense in the Open Theism model.

For example:

In the sense that Christ will return in the future with a sword, is it possible that we jump the gun in following his future example, and ignore His previous example? I think we are often way too eager to identify with the coming Christ while reluctant to identify with the Suffering Servant Christ who is still in the world today. I think we are way too eager to reign with Christ in order to avoid suffering with him in the present for the sake of the Gospel.
In our rush to Armageddon, we are in danger of dethroning Jesus who is as a slain-lamb-standing and premature in enjoying His judgment of OUR enemies, who He command us to love until he does in fact return to judge.
For now we need to let the Lion lie down and follow the Lamb.
​

Others have a different understanding of the book of Revelation and details of the future God promises, which are, none the less, still compatible with Open Theism. That's fine! We can hammer those out among ourselves, but the basics of the Open View remain intact. The frustration comes in trying to discuss OV with people who have a host of convictions that are foreign to the basic premises of OV.

What is gained?
For me the Open View of the future keeps the emphasis on the here and now, where decisions that affect our futures are being made. The Kingdom may be future, but it is also here and now regardless of the resistance to the Kings sovereignty. Jesus is LORD in my life here and now and I fully expect he will be for all eternity.

For me, what is gained is the FREEDOM for which Christ has set me FREE.

I'll decide what to have for breakfast tomorrow as well as make a host of decisions and choices that will have far greater consequences. And with the Spirits help, I’ll make good ones.


​

 

[elected4ever]

Some good questions (at least the ones I think I understand).

It isn't a matter of how big, powerful, able God is, or any of those kinds of questions.

In the Open View, the future doesn’t exist. Did you get that? The future doesn’t exist. The history of the future hasn’t been written! OV trusts God not because God determines everything … past-present-future … or even because God sees or knows the future in detail, but rather because God is faithful to Himself and His creation. God can be trusted to do the right thing. It’s called faith in God, NOT faith in a determined future. Only what God determines HE will do in the future can be said to be KNOWN with absolute certainty, because God is faithful and can be trusted to accomplish His intentions. What we must wrestle with is what the Bible actually says with absolute certainty that God will do in the future. Here there are many opinions and interpretations of scripture. One frustration OV proponents face is that the Open View is often forced into all kinds of pre-formulated systems and theologies. Some, like Calvinism, are just irreconcilable to the Open View. That simple! Hence, some of your questions (though understandable in other contexts) just don’t make sense in the Open Theism model.

For example:

In the sense that Christ will return in the future with a sword, is it possible that we jump the gun in following his future example, and ignore His previous example? I think we are often way too eager to identify with the coming Christ while reluctant to identify with the Suffering Servant Christ who is still in the world today. I think we are way too eager to reign with Christ in order to avoid suffering with him in the present for the sake of the Gospel.
In our rush to Armageddon, we are in danger of dethroning Jesus who is as a slain-lamb-standing and premature in enjoying His judgment of OUR enemies, who He command us to love until he does in fact return to judge.
For now we need to let the Lion lie down and follow the Lamb.
​

Others have a different understanding of the book of Revelation and details of the future God promises, which are, none the less, still compatible with Open Theism. That's fine! We can hammer those out among ourselves, but the basics of the Open View remain intact. The frustration comes in trying to discuss OV with people who have a host of convictions that are foreign to the basic premises of OV.

What is gained?
For me the Open View of the future keeps the emphasis on the here and now, where decisions that affect our futures are being made. The Kingdom may be future, but it is also here and now regardless of the resistance to the Kings sovereignty. Jesus is LORD in my life here and now and I fully expect he will be for all eternity.

For me, what is gained is the FREEDOM for which Christ has set me FREE.

I'll decide what to have for breakfast tomorrow as well as make a host of decisions and choices that will have far greater consequences. And with the Spirits help, I’ll make good ones.


​

The future does not exist for you and me but that does not mean that the future does not exist to God. God's foreknowledge is not causal. Our decisions are causal. God gave man dominion and that means that man has free agency. A right to choose if you will. We have hind sight. God has foresight. That is why Jesus was part of God's plan from the beginning.

 

[Philetus]

The future does not exist for you and me but that does not mean that the future does not exist to God. God's foreknowledge is not causal. Our decisions are causal. God gave man dominion and that means that man has free agency. A right to choose if you will. We have hind sight. God has foresight. That is why Jesus was part of God's plan from the beginning.

The future either does or does not exist, period.
If our decisions do not affect change in the one and common future then what do we have dominion over?
Not only did Jesus factor into the plan from the beginning ... He was in on the planning.

 

[Clete]

I know that I'm not DVT Dave but I have a feeling that some of my answers will be somewhat different that Dave's and so I though it would be interesting for me to offer my answers to Lonster's questions as well.

Dave, Please do not let this post prevent you from responding directly with your own post. I'd love to find out just how different our answers will be.

Can we discuss what is lost and what is gained from each perspective?

OV would state God could not know, specifically by His own volition because He has the power to know. If I'm understanding correctly.

A nonOV position would state that God must know for He has Foreknowledge (some in differing perspectives would say exhaustive). Furthermore, He could not be competent if there were too many contingencies (this or a variance is leveled often toward the OV position).

So one side suggests an impossibility and claim that nonOV has God in a tyrannical position. The other, that God is much smaller and unable.

What I'd like to hear is exactly what is lost and what is gained in the respective viewpoints.

Here are a few leading questions but expound anything that is pertinent.

-If God does not know future exhaustively, how much does He know? Is it limited to determinism?

God is able to know all that is logically knowable but only actually knows that portion of the knowable information that He wants to know. As for the future God knows the portion of the future which He has decided to unilaterally bring to pass by His own power. The glorification of the Body of Christ and the creation of a new Heaven and new Earth of a couple of examples.

I don't think I understand your question about "Is it limited to determinism?"

-If God made Adam with a faulty sin valve, did He know about it? Was it faulty?

"Was it faulty?" is the key question here. No! It was not faulty.
This question I think leads from a faulty understanding of why God created man in the first place. The Calvinist thinks that God does everything to glorify Himself and for only that reason and while all things that God does do bring Him glory, that isn't why He does them. God is not selfish but rather loving. God created man so that He might have a relationship with him. God wanted Adam to love Him and the only way that is possible is for God to create Adam with the capacity to reject Him. This is the premise of the book, The God Who Risks by John Sanders. God very much wanted Adam not to sin and Adam could have done just that. God, of course wasn't unprepared for either circumstance.

How is God impinged or expunged?

This question makes very little sense to me Lonster.

Impinged? Do you mean affected? If so, God is affected by nearly everything we do! Prayer is the obvious answer but love, hate, righteousness, sin; all these things and anything that would be described by them would affect God.

Expunged? Do you mean removed, exhausted, deleted? I don't get it. God cannot be expunged.

-What was necessary for man to have choice? What factor had to be part of Adam's makeup for this to work?

For what to work? If I understand your question, which I don't know that I do, we may not know the answer to this question.

What we do know is that without choice morality is meaningless. If you cannot choose, you simply cannot do rightly nor sin. So the only answer I know how to give you is that in order for Adam to have a choice he had to have been given not only options to choose from but the ability to pick from those options by an act of his own will. As for how that works and just what part of Adam's make up causes it to work, I think is impossible for us to know. We haven't been told.

-How is God's omnicompetence accomplished if He does not know outcomes?

It would not be accomplished if He did! Competence has to do with skill and the ability to anticipate. Firm knowledge of the outcome requires neither. If God exhaustively knows the future, competence is just not a word that would apply.

-How do you handle difficult passages like Revelation with interaction if the future is impossible to travel to?

This might sound like a pat answer but honestly, the answer is, by not reading our theology into the passages and taking more from them than they actually say.

If it was not future, is it merely predictive or absolute?
How can you know?

It's predictive. We know because the contrary is a rational impossibility. The future does not exist. No one, including God, can go to a place that does not exist, nor can God send John there. We can further know because such predictive prophecies have been made by God before, some of which did not come to pass per the warning given in Jeremiah 18. Much of Revelation is no different. The book has to do with Israel, its purging and its being given a kingdom. If the world repents, which I agree is quite unlikely, then God will not bring the disaster which He said He would bring. That's what Jeremiah 18 explicitly states.

I frankly don't understand how the Calvinist worldview can withstand a single reading of Jeremiah 18.

-God promises in glory, that all tears and sorrow will be eliminated. We understand that sin will be erradicated also. How is this accomplished if we really do have freewill? Do we lose it at Heaven's doorstep?

This question has been brought up a few times even within Open View circles. The answer is, we don't know. My response is usually to say that we will resist doing evil by the same mechanism that God Himself does. God has existed for an eternity without ever having done anything that was not in the best interest of others and has done so while being free and able to do otherwise. We will do the same and do it by whatever means God does it, presumably by the power of God Himself. Beyond that, any answer to this question would be speculation.

I could post more, but I just want to get to a treatise on the OV that is a bit more cogent than just a mere thread post if possible.

I recommend reading Is Openness Christian theism?

and then pretty much anything on THIS web page.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

The future either does or does not exist, period.
If our decisions do not affect change in the one and common future then what do we have dominion over?
Not only did Jesus factor into the plan from the beginning ... He was in on the planning.

Therefore God's foreknowledge caused everything. Sin. and all that comes with it. God is unjust. That is what you are saying, same as Nang. To Nang, those thoughts are not objectionable. To you and me they are. The only way you can come to the conclushion that you do is to believe that God caused everything by the fact of His foreknowledge. There is to much evidence that God knows the future and to much evidence that man has free will for God not to have foreknowledge. Nang is wrong and so are you. Two wrongs do not make a right and one wrong does not make the other wrong true.

 

[godrulz]

God is able to know all that is logically knowable but only actually knows that portion of the knowable information that He wants to know.
Clete

Helpful post and link, as usual.

I understand the first part of the sentence, but always stumble on the second part. It seems to me that the latter contradicts the former, so I would question the last part.

In all my readings, TOL/Enyart is the only place I have seen it worded like this. If you are anyone finds the concept in other Open Theism literature, I would be interested seeing how it is developed by another author (Boyd, Haskers, Sanders, Basinger, Pinnock, Rice, etc.).

The parallel issue is with omnipresence where you would state that God does not have to be in a gay bar (by presence or awareness) if He choses not to.

I would suggest any limitation in omniscience or omnipotence is voluntary, such as by creating free moral agents or by incarnating, for example.

Since these are metaphysical attributes, I do not see them as volitional, like moral (character) or personal. God cannot chose to not be eternal. He cannot chose to not know available objects of knowledge (the future is different because it is not there to know).

If Satan and man can be aware of homosexual perversion, I do not see how God could chose to not be aware of it.

Another application is that forgiveness of sin is not divine amnesia or forgetfulness. It is chosing to not bring up sin or not hold it against the person, treating them as if they never sinned (yet still aware that the sin is historical reality).

So, my first interest is other non-Enyart Open Theists who would state things this way. Secondly, if Clete could expand on the logistics of this (saying it does not make it so...bah hah) for my understanding (even if I disagree in the end).

Dave, have you heard this thought and does it strike you as legit (certainly not in a closed view, but even in a classical open theism view?)?

 

[Nang]

Therefore God's foreknowledge caused everything. Sin.

Adam caused sin and death to enter the world, not God. (Romans 5:12)

The only charge that could possibly be brought against God, is that He created us. And seeing that God cannot create God, Who is sinless, then it stands that lesser beings made of material dust, would be subject to imperfection. God created lesser beings in full knowledge that they would fail and fall short of His glory, for they can do no less.

So you are really arguing that God should never have created mankind. For that is the only way man could have been spared the fall into sin.

The only way you can come to the conclushion that you do is to believe that God caused everything by the fact of His foreknowledge.

Godly foreknowledge is not causal. God's will, purpose, and good pleasure is causal. And God willed to create a humanity, through and in His Son, Jesus Christ, who would be forever lifted above sin and death in order to live forever in glory. However, instead of expecting (or knowing ahead of time) that man could ever lift himself to a level of holy perfection, the Son lowered Himself as a Man, to provide righteous perfection on behalf of those the Father gave Him.

There is to much evidence that God knows the future and to much evidence that man has free will for God not to have foreknowledge. Nang is wrong and so are you. Two wrongs do not make a right and one wrong does not make the other wrong true.

God knows all things, and men were created moral agents with the ability to willfully act; therefore men have secondary causal abilities. The problem is, Adam exercised his will wrongfully, and through himself into service to the Liar, Satan.

Because of this servitude to Satan, sin, and death, the moral agency (will) of man is thoroughly subject to sin, death, and the devil. The moral agency (will) of man is in bondage to sin, death, and the devil. Man is no longer free to serve God, for no man can serve two masters.

This is the condition of all sinners until or unless they are rescued and set free from this bondage, by faith in Jesus Christ. Only God's grace can free the moral agency (will) of the individual sinner, to newly serve the good things of God.

So your idea that I deny that man is a willful creature, is quite mistaken. I believe all men have a will and make choices . . .but the unregenerate can only choose to serve sin.

Christians, born again, are made new creatures; body, mind, and soul. They are given new hearts, which produce new choices and ability to love God and serve Him as Master.

"Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered, and having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." Romans 6:16-18

This is the amazing grace of God!

Nang

 

[themuzicman]

However, Exhaustive, definite foreknowledge requires cause. Who do you propose caused Adam's decision before creation was formed?

Muz

 

[Clete]

Before I begin, I can't help but point out that I think that this is perhaps the longest post that godrulz has ever posted!

Just kidding, godrulz! :chuckle:

Helpful post and link, as usual.

I understand the first part of the sentence, but always stumble on the second part. It seems to me that the latter contradicts the former, so I would question the last part.

How so? God is capable of knowing anything that is knowable but doesn't have to know anything that He doesn't want to know or that He has decided to ignore. I could understand why you might disagree but there is no contradiction.

In all my readings, TOL/Enyart is the only place I have seen it worded like this. If you are anyone finds the concept in other Open Theism literature, I would be interested seeing how it is developed by another author (Boyd, Haskers, Sanders, Basinger, Pinnock, Rice, etc.).

So far as I know there are no other authors who have picked up on this particular point.
Perhaps someone reading this could ask Bob Enyart whether he knows of any. I'd also be interested in getting additional perspectives on the issue.

The parallel issue is with omnipresence where you would state that God does not have to be in a gay bar (by presence or awareness) if He choses not to.

Right. God is able to do all things that are logically doable but is not required to do anything that He does not want to do thus God can be everywhere that exists at once but is not required to be anywhere other than where He wants to be.

I would suggest any limitation in omniscience or omnipotence is voluntary, such as by creating free moral agents or by incarnating, for example.

Indeed! I think I agree with you here. The knowable information that God does not know, He is able to find out and thus His ignorance of it is voluntary.

Since these are metaphysical attributes, I do not see them as volitional, like moral (character) or personal. God cannot chose to not be eternal. He cannot chose to not know available objects of knowledge (the future is different because it is not there to know).

But didn't you just say that God the Son chose to divest Himself of some knowledge and glory during the incarnation? How is this not contradictory?

If Satan and man can be aware of homosexual perversion, I do not see how God could chose to not be aware of it.

Think this statement through again godrulz.

First of all Satan is not aware of every evil event that happens and neither is any particular man. Neither Satan nor man is even capable of witnessing every evil act that happens for neither of them are omnipresent nor omniscient in any respect. God, on the other hand, is fully aware of homosexual perversion but it is not required to be a first person witness of every vile act that happens in the restrooms of every gay bar in the world.

Another application is that forgiveness of sin is not divine amnesia or forgetfulness. It is chosing to not bring up sin or not hold it against the person, treating them as if they never sinned (yet still aware that the sin is historical reality).

Which God said that He forgets.

Isaiah 43:25 “ I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; And I will not remember your sins. - emphasis added​

I don't dispute that "not remembering" could mean simply choosing not to bring them up or to hold them against the perpetrator but I don't think that fits with the Biblical usage, especially in the above quoted verse. How would God not choosing to bring it up be for His own sake? That would be for our sake, not His. I think it is perfectly consistent with the Biblical text to simply take God at His word when He says He won't remember and believe that He won't remember.

So, my first interest is other non-Enyart Open Theists who would state things this way. Secondly, if Clete could expand on the logistics of this (saying it does not make it so...bah hah) for my understanding (even if I disagree in the end).

Come on now Godrulz! Saying it doesn't make it so is far too important an axiom to be ending it with "bah hah"!

I believe it because that's what the Bible seems to clearly indicate. Just to give a single example; before God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah, He comes right out and flatly states that He is ignorant of the exact situation there and that because of the prayers of His children, He is going to investigate and see whether it's as bad as He's been told and "if not, then I will know" (Genesis 18:20-21).

Dave, have you heard this thought and does it strike you as legit (certainly not in a closed view, but even in a classical open theism view?)?

You have to answer this one Dave. I value your opinion and can't wait to hear what you have to say about the issue.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

However, Exhaustive, definite foreknowledge requires cause. Who do you propose caused Adam's decision before creation was formed?

Muz

Are you asking me, Michael?

Adam's decision was made by Adam after creation.

God had foreknowledge of Adam's decision before creation.

God did not make Adam's decision.

God made Adam in His image, able to effect secondary cause through the exercise of will.

 

[themuzicman]

So, you don't have a problem with the obvious logical contradiction of certain knowledge of a free decision before it is made, or even the free will agent exists?

Muz

 

[Nang]

God, on the other hand, is fully aware of homosexual perversion but it is not required to be a first person witness of every vile act that happens in the restrooms of every gay bar in the world.

You wanna bet? God sees everything, and will judge everything. God hears everything and will judge every word spoken or written.

Which God said that He forgets.

Isaiah 43:25 “ I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; And I will not remember your sins. - emphasis added​

Not in the "forgotten" sense, but in the sense of propitiation. The blood of Christ covers all the sins of His people, and His priestly mediation continually presents the sons of God, fit and cleansed of sins, to stand reconciled before the Father.

How would God not choosing to bring it up be for His own sake?

"His own sake" is the glorification of the Son. God takes great pleasure in the efficacacy of the sacrificial blood of the Lamb!

Nang

 

[Nang]

So, you don't have a problem with the obvious logical contradiction of certain knowledge of a free decision before it is made, or even the free will agent exists?

Muz

Drop the word "free" and I don't.

 

[godrulz]

Thx for the responsive answer, Clete. I am still an unsatisfied customer and am having a mental block (cf. Mid-Acts).

The incarnation affects the Word (Jesus) only on earth, not the Godhead or His preexistent state (so it is not a parallel example).

If God forgets my sins (wooden literalism vs Hebraism..figure of speech?), then when I have flashbacks to my past, He would remember them (knows my thoughts) and have to 'forget' them again?

 

[themuzicman]

Drop the word "free" and I don't.

LOL... So, God is the cause of everything. Including sin. OK.

Muz

 

[Nang]

LOL... So, God is the cause of everything. Including sin. OK.

Muz

God is the first cause of all things, including Adam. Adam is the cause of his own decision to sin, which God had foreknowledge of before creating Adam.

God is not the cause of sin. Adam caused sin.

So your displeasure comes down upon God's creative act, not upon Adam's willful choice.

Can't you see that?

You are blaming sin on God because God created Adam.

Would you rather God had never created all of us? Or do you rejoice that despite our human failings, God provided a human access to heaven and everlasting life through His Son?

Which would you prefer? Never to have been born, or to live forever?

Nang

 

[themuzicman]

God is the first cause of all things, including Adam. Adam is the cause of his own decision to sin, which God had foreknowledge of before creating Adam.

God is not the cause of sin. Adam caused sin.

So your displeasure comes down upon God's creative act, not upon Adam's willful choice.

Can't you see that?

You are blaming sin on God because God created Adam.

Would you rather God had never created all of us? Or do you rejoice that despite our human failings, God provided a human access to heaven and everlasting life through His Son?

Which would you prefer? Never to have been born, or to live forever?

Nang

Actually, I'm saying that the language God uses to describe His wrath clearly places the primary responsibility for man's actions upon man, and you've said that man cannot act responsibly with regard to his sin.

That's called a contradiction.

Muz

 

[Nang]

Actually, I'm saying that the language God uses to describe His wrath clearly places the primary responsibility for man's actions upon man, and you've said that man cannot act responsibly with regard to his sin.

That's called a contradiction.

Muz

That is called an invented muddle.

I agree God clearly places the primary responsibility for sin upon Adam, but you seem to infer that must mean a sinner can "act responsibly" to get himself free from the consequences of his actions.

But that was the warning God gave Adam in the beginning. If Adam sinned, Adam would die. And when one dies, there is nothing they can do to reverse the sentence and corruption of death.

You only think it is a contradiction, because you believe that a supposed "free" will in man can reverse his plight. But it is impossible for dead men to raise themselves to new life. In fact, because the corruption of sinfulness is so throrough, dead men are not willing to live or seek God. (Romans 3:10-18)

The only thing that can reverse the willful (and wrong) action of Adam, is the willful and righteous action of the last Adam, Jesus Christ. The grace of God, alone, working through the Savior, alone, can rescue sinners from the curse of death, and change their wills to seek to serve God and His righteousness.

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us . . ." Galatians 3:13a

"That the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Galatians 3:14