From my responses to Mark Batton in threads of one of his FB posts:
You speak of two frameworks, neither of which match the framework from which I understand the questions under discussion.
I do understand that we (that is, certain prominent leaders in philosophy and religion in our society) interpret much of our ancient record according to frameworks like these.
I am deliberately not well-versed in such frameworks.
If I describe my current understanding of my framework, I might describe as follows:
There is a principle of Godliness. The laws of our universe were established under that principle. In particular, the physical laws of our thermodynamic (ergo, entropic) universe are a proper subset of the principle of Godliness.
The principle of Godliness has three facets: Creator/Progenitor, Created/Progeny, and Medium of both communication and creation. (Medium cannot be one without the other.)
These facets are instantiated for a world such as ours in the form of a Father God, a Son God, and a Holy Spirit God. Any Being having conformed to the principle of Godliness will operate exactly as any other, so any One can stand in for either of the other two.
Jehovah is the premortal Jesus, the Son -- God of Hosts.
You will recognize this, I think, but you will already see differences between this and the Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox concepts. You will perhaps notice that the Nicaean Council was missing the forest for the trees. And missing the trees for the forest. If I am right.
We existed with God before this world devolved to its thermodynamic state -- before our time began. We had not attained to the principle of Godliness, but we had attained to perfections that were limited by what principles we had attained to. We could not progress beyond those limits without experiencing the consequences of choice. The consequences of choice cannot be properly experienced without time, thus entropy and the thermodynamic principle (death) were necessary.
In order to properly experience choice, our choices had to be made without force. This is often discussed as free agency. It is not complete freedom of constraint, because nothing happens without some constraint -- much like the skater on ice needs some degree of friction in some direction, or the skater cannot move.
But the decisions which must be made for us to prove to ourselves whether we will choose the principle Godliness or settle for something less must be made freely.
Lucifer rebelled, and tried to introduce death into this world in a way that would, as he believed, give him power against God, but rebelling against God is rebelling against self, not to mention reality. In doing so, he was essentially jumping the gun for that opportunity for force.
If both Adam and Eve had refused, what would have happened? The key is there in the Bible.
Exercise dominion over the earth. That commandment came first, but it could not be obeyed until Adam and Eve understood good and evil.
But the choice to take of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil is one of those choices that God can't force.
If Adam and Eve had refused the temptation of Lucifer, God would have sent angels of His own to instruct them on the necessity of death, but still left them with the choice.
Entropy, for beings who have not attained the principle of Godliness, brings about error -- both deliberate sin and transgression because of lack of understanding or lack of resources.
Without help, the erroneous choice can never be fully redeemed.
Neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Ghost are being arbitrary enforcers. This is simply part of the package. Redemption is not paying the price of sin to any instantiation of the principle of Godliness. It is paying the cost of moving us from a causal track that leads away from God to a track that leads back to God.
Did I mention that time is basically experiencing causality?
I'm leaving a whole bunch of stuff out. Don't have time. Just giving enough to show how the frameworks you are attempting to use are not the framework I'm operating under.
