Free choice - the fall need not have happened?

[LongJohnSilver]

I am currently reading a book by Peter Kreeft (You Can Understand the Bible), which I find very interesting. Something in the chapter about the fall in Genesis got me thinking though. The author says that since it was a free fall, it need not have happened. That sounds reasonable.

However, imagine a situation in which a person is brought up in a totally blue world. His father asks him if he wants to stay in the blue world or move to a totally red world. The person has a completely free choice. He does not have much knowledge on the red world though.
Then imagine a situation in which another person is brought up in the blue world, but left to live in the red world. The father then asks him if he wants to stay in the red world, or if he wants to return to the blue world. Again, completely free choice.

Since the first person does not know much about the red world, is his choice really free?
Is the will of the second person not more free, since he has knowledge of both worlds?

And if so, is it assumable that the fall was in fact necessary, to make our choice as free as possible? Can’t we choose more freely for God’s (blue) world, now that we have experienced the fallen (red) world?

 

[Biggie]

This presupposes freedom is proportional to knowledge. It confuses freedom with ability or capacity. Freedom accrues by virtue of human life itself (inalienable) and on its face this premise devalues life, since it establishes a condition of life as the measure of life’s worth.

The premise also presupposes that the “blue world” and the “red world” are equivalent alternate realities. In truth, there is only the “blue world” or the absence of the “blue world”.

 

[JRKH]

I am currently reading a book by Peter Kreeft (You Can Understand the Bible), which I find very interesting. Something in the chapter about the fall in Genesis got me thinking though. The author says that since it was a free fall, it need not have happened. That sounds reasonable.

However, imagine a situation in which a person is brought up in a totally blue world. His father asks him if he wants to stay in the blue world or move to a totally red world. The person has a completely free choice. He does not have much knowledge on the red world though.
Then imagine a situation in which another person is brought up in the blue world, but left to live in the red world. The father then asks him if he wants to stay in the red world, or if he wants to return to the blue world. Again, completely free choice.

Since the first person does not know much about the red world, is his choice really free?
Is the will of the second person not more free, since he has knowledge of both worlds?

And if so, is it assumable that the fall was in fact necessary, to make our choice as free as possible? Can’t we choose more freely for God’s (blue) world, now that we have experienced the fallen (red) world?

God did not ask us if we wanted to live in one world or another.
What he did ask was that we obey one rule and not eat from the tree of Knowledge.
If the father asks the child not to do something and he does it anyway there are consequenses. The first time it happens the child does not know what the consequences are but the consequences will occur anyway. For instance the first time the child is told, “don’t touch that or daddy will spank”, the child does not know what “spank” is. It is only after the disobedience that the child discovers what spank means.

Peace
James

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Thanks for the replies, I’ll think about it.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I am currently reading a book by Peter Kreeft (You Can Understand the Bible), which I find very interesting. Something in the chapter about the fall in Genesis got me thinking though. The author says that since it was a free fall, it need not have happened. That sounds reasonable.

However, imagine a situation in which a person is brought up in a totally blue world. His father asks him if he wants to stay in the blue world or move to a totally red world. The person has a completely free choice. He does not have much knowledge on the red world though.
Then imagine a situation in which another person is brought up in the blue world, but left to live in the red world. The father then asks him if he wants to stay in the red world, or if he wants to return to the blue world. Again, completely free choice.

Since the first person does not know much about the red world, is his choice really free?
Is the will of the second person not more free, since he has knowledge of both worlds?

And if so, is it assumable that the fall was in fact necessary, to make our choice as free as possible? Can’t we choose more freely for God’s (blue) world, now that we have experienced the fallen (red) world?

It also depends on how long the temptation was allowed to stay there. God could have determined that He was going to allow Satan to tempt Adam and Eve UNTIL curiousity finally got the better of them. Remember they were completely naive up to that point as regards “good and evil”. If you want to tempt naive children, put up a curtain and say “Don’t look behind that, whatever you do.” The minute your back is turned, they’ll have a look. The mere prohibition indicates that whatever it is behind the curtain, it must be worth having a look at, or you wouldn’t have told them not to.

It’s one thing to have the question popped only once. But it’s another if it goes on for a long time. The alcoholic who goes to a dinner party for work obligations may find it relatively easy to refuse the drink if its a rare occasion. But if his job requires constant entertainment and business dinners, he’s going to find it a lot harder.

We don’t know how long they were tempted for.

There’s more to it than just choice. There’s also the factors of time, persistence and God’s ultimate plan. He had a stake in it too. I sometimes think we’re a bit too keen to absolve God of all blame. It was HIS plan in the end, otherwise we’re saying an omnipotent God had to die on the cross as it was the only Plan B He could come up with.