In continuing my reading of the dialogue on "Free Will vs Sovereignty of God" on the aforementioned message forum I came across another posting by Mr White that I copy for you here:
Elktooth your point is well taken, if the LORD God commanded the man saying, “… from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die,” how was it possible to eat and not have free will? The answer I believe is found in the last part of the LORD’s command, “…for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” The LORD states that there is a specific day when Adam would eat from it and start to die… all for the good, so we could experience the Love of Jesus!
Unworthly to your question if God is responsible for sin … Ex 21:33-34 tells us: “And if a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it over, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit shall make restitution; he shall give money to its owner, and the dead animal shall become his.”
The owner of the pit is liable even if he did not physically force the ox into the pit. The fact remains that he ALLOWED it to happen by digging the pit and not covering it. He is liable on the grounds that he could have prevented it but did not. He created the OPPORTUNITY for the ox to fall into the pit. And so, God’s law rules that the man who opened the pit is legally liable and must pay restitution to the animal's owner. In applying the spirit of this law to Adam's situation in the garden, God is both the owner of the pit and the owner of the ox (Adam). First, God dug a pit, because he created an opportunity for Adam to sin. God did not cover this pit in that He created Adam with the potential to sin and created a tree of knowledge, putting it within Adam's reach. God created an opportunity for Adam (the ox) to fall into the pit (sin and death). That made God legally liable by His own law and created a "tension" that demanded a resolution. The lawful solution is that restitution must be made. The final result is that "the dead animal shall become his." So God bought the dead ox (Adam and all who died in Adam), and the ox became His. Is not this why Jesus came? He fulfilled the law to the letter, purchasing all who died in Adam.
“When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet [railing] for your roof, that you may not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone falls from it.” Dt 22:8
If you neglected to build a railing and someone fell off and were killed, you would be liable for involuntary manslaughter. When God allowed Adam to fall, and when God allowed the tempter to tempt Adam, He left the railing off the roof. He did not take the safety precaution required by His own law that would have prevented Adam and Eve from falling. And so, when God walked in the garden "in the cool of the day" (Gen. 3:8), He found that Adam and Eve had fallen off the roof. God became liable. This liability would have to last until the death of the High Priest. Jesus had to come as the true High Priest of the temple in heaven and die, in order to release God from the liability incurred and strike the chord that would again bring harmony to the sphere of the universe.
God deliberately made Himself liable, not only for Adam's death, but for the death of Adam's sons and daughters (Ex 21:31) as well. Was a "ransom" (Ex 21:30) demanded of God as a result of the liability? Whether demanded or not, Jesus voluntarily gave Himself as a ransom for ALL (1 Tim 2:6). The demand is defined in Ex 21 as "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth," etc. And so we see Christ coming down to earth in the form of a man to pay "life for life" all the demands of His own law. None of this makes God a sinner, for He has not failed in fulfilling ANY of His plans and purposes for creation. He planned all this from the beginning. He made Himself liable for the sins of the whole world and then paid its full penalty.
I stand amazed...
And the last post in that thread (at this point in time anyway) is hilarious! ShannO (Arminian...? I think? although she/he goes all over the place and makes no sense whatsoever...) is shown to be completely wrong in her (I'm thinking she is a she, because it's usually us women that get this contorted) replies and ends with:
Kinda busy right now. Don't have time to respond properly.
Ha! she finally came out of hiding with the same ole tactic of "ARE YOU A CALVINIST???" being her main line of argument....sigh...oh well....