Free Will & Determinism Debate III

"So again, according to determinist theology, why should we value God so highly seeing as how He caused the fall of man and brought sin and destruction into the world and then punished his creation for the sins that God caused them to commit?"

That was a good "tit for tat." However, I never said that we should "value" determimism. I certainly never put any "value" upon "free will." What I do "value" is the sovereignty, omnipotence, and omniscience of God. What I devalue is giving such attributes to creatures.

Yes, God's will and decree "got us into this mess." But, for the elect, there is a determined decree to "get them out of the mess." But, it can also be said that Adam got us into this mess. Further, it could be said that Eve and Satan got us into this mess. It can be said that we get ourselves into this mess also. All these persons are "causes" for us being in this mess, yet in different senses of "causality."

But, granting that "free will" got us into this mess, it certainly cannot get us out!

Many Determinists believe that Adam acted freely, as did Christ, but all other men now act passively, being now unpossessed of "free will," as it was given to Adam and Eve. These Determinists would avow that "free will" got us into this mess but only predestination (determinism) gets us out. Very few deny that Adam had free will, although this is not my view; of course, this depends on how we are defining "free will." But, these same people, while admitting that Adam had "free will," believe that he and all men now do not have that same freedom.

"He caused the fall of man and brought sin and destruction into the world and then punished his creation for the sins that God caused them to commit?"

Yes, this is what the bible teaches. It teaches that God willed every event to occur. It teaches that God willed the fall of Adam and yet held Adam accountable for the fall.

Both God and Adam willed the fall. Adam intended it for evil, but God for good. (Gen. 50: 20)

Before Pharoah, Esau, and such "vessels of wrath," were born, or created, they were hated and rejected by God. It was not based upon "any evil" they had done. It was "before" it, and could not therefore be a reaction to it. (Romans 9)

Also, scripture is very clear, saying - "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." (Proverbs 16: 4 KJV)

"And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go." (Exodus 4: 21 KJV)

"And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said...And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said." (7: 13, 22, etc.)

"And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen." (Exodus 14: 17 KJV)

"But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day." (Deuteronomy 2: 30 KJV)

"There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle. For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses." (Joshua 11: 19, 20 KJV)

"O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance." (Isaiah 63: 17 KJV)

"He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." (John 12: 40 KJV)

It seems that "free will" theology will not let God get his "honor" from the destruction of Pharoah, the Egyptians, and with Sihon! They must affirm that their understanding of God makes it impossible for God to do as he has done in these verses! And notice how the end, God's "honor," certainly "justifies the means"! Can God not use a creature for such ignoble ends? Does he owe the creature anything?

As far as "cause" and "effect" goes, who can read these verses and say God was no cause at all? That he was not in any way "responsible"? God is responsible for all things, but he is not accountable to anyone, nor to any law outside of himself. I use the term "responsible" in the sense of "cause" here. Many things are "responsible" for other things but are not "accountable," blameworthy, or guilty, in a social and legal context.

I will have a few more comments to offer on "causality" forthwith as I address some of your other comments along this line.

But, notice how even the holy and godly prophet, Jeremiah, also asks God why his heart has been hardened by God! Was he blaspheming God?

"I never said that we would one day be fully determined. I only said that we will be unable to sin in Heaven. That does not mean that God will determine all that we do."

Yes, and I see this as a contradiction, and you do not. We will not have free will in heaven and neither will we be fully determined!

If we are unable to sin in heaven, then God took some "ability" away from us? That taking away of ability does not determine or guarantee future choice and activity? Does not fully determine it?

Besides, where did this "ability" to sin come from? You say it is part of free will ability. You define free will as having both the power to do do good and the power to do evil. And you admit that "free will ability" is what God gives (imparts) to man (without man's permission, I might add!) Thus, you admit that God gave man the power to do evil. Why would he do that? Would you create a machine or robot that had the power to do evil? If you did, would you be "responsible" and "accountable" by the laws of society?

Thus, you admit that God gave "A" (power or ability or free will) knowing that the giving of "A" would cause "B" (mess of sin, etc.), but yet you refuse to allow that this in any way makes God, in any sense, a "cause" or one "responsible" for "B."

God either determines an event will occur or it will not occur. By your own confession and definition of things, you admit that God "permits" things to occur. You also imply that this "permission" is necessary for the event to occur. If event "A" cannot occur without the permission or will of "B," then "B" can be said to be a "cause" of "A."

If I am holding a rock in my hand, it cannot fall without me "letting" or "permitting" it to fall.

Notice these words of scripture:

"Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" (Lamentations 3: 37, 38 KJV)

It is also true that God will remove all those things which pull us toward sin in heaven. We sin on earth because of:

1) The pull of the sinful nature
2) The pull of the corrupt and sinful world system
3) Temptation form demonic forces

In Heaven there will no longer be a sinful nature, a corrupt world system, or demonic forces."

If the presence of the things itemized are causes to our being able to sin, as you admit, then you must admit that these things are in our world by the will of God, for he could remove them even now, and thus make him a cause. You admit that a sinless existence will come about when God "removes" these things. Therefore, God not only has the power to stop these things, and thus stop all sinning, but will actually do so in the future.

You admit that God "allowed" or "permitted" Satan to tempt us, and also admit that he will remove this temptation in the world to come. Thus, you admit that the presence of the temptor in our world is the result of God willing or causing it.

"There is really nothing in the Bible that tells us what our wills will be like in Heaven. It does seem that there will be no sin in Heaven and I am content to believe that this results from the lack of opportunity to sin coupled with the fact that God makes us incorruptible in accordance with our will (and His) to be completely free from sin and conformed to the image of His Son."

I do not agree that the scriptures are silent on the state of our wills in Heaven. If you really believe it says nothing about it, then you ought not to be taking any dogmatic stands on the topic.

You speak of "opportunity" to sin as being something God is in control of, in these words, but you will not allow him to be a cause. I find that grossly illogical.

Is God making one "incorruptible" that which fully determines the individual to every future right action? You seem to affirm this and if you do, you have come over to Determinism to a great degree.

"However, if God irresistibly determines our choices then our choices are not ours but his. In that case, when we love God, God is really just loving Himself. He is not receiving love from His creatures but receiving love from Himself. Worse yet, when a person hates and rejects God, he is not really hating and rejecting God because he is not in control of his decisions, God is. Therefore God is just hating Himself and rejecting Himself. It really does reduce to a cosmic puppet show where God causes puppets to love Him and causes puppets to hate Him and then punishes them forever for doing what God caused them to do. That is why hard-determinism is absurd and the history of Christianity has never accepted it as orthodox."

"In your view people are little more than machines. They do not make moral decisions. They are entirely passive and God makes decisions for them. God punishing us for what we do in hard-determinism is as absurd as punishing an engine for breaking down."

Again, what do the scriptures say? Why do you think Calvinists believe this? Is it not what Romans 9 and other verses plainly teach? Notice also how you cite no scripture that says "man is not a puppet or a machine." This proposition is simply an enthymeme of yours and one that is not scriptural. In fact, the bible does picture man as God's product, his machine, his creation. Certainly our bodies can be called "machines" can they not?

I think you have a problem in denying that man is, in any sense, a machine or a puppet. Was the Assyrian not a puppet in God's hand? (Isaiah 10)? What is the essential difference in saying we are the clay and God is the Potter or saying God is the puppeteer and we are the puppets? Does God have any "strings" attached to his creation, whereby he controls them? Maybe we disagree on how many strings God controls versus the puppet himself?

It is a non sequiter to say that if God causes our choices then the choices are not ours. Does God cause our resurrection? If so, then by your logic, we cannot say that such a resurrection is "our" resurrection! Does God cause our breathing? If so, then by your logic, it is not "our" breathing!

I must also ask you if you believe God has ever caused or determined a single choice anyone ever made? Has he ever compelled or constrained a man to think, will, or do anything? If you do allow any cases where God caused a choice, then that choice, by your definitions and logic, is not the creature's choice. That is not logical, a non sequiter.

Calvinist do not have any problem with the concept that praises given to creatures are, in essence, God's praise of his own work in us! You Arminian free will advocates, however, believe that God gets no "credit" or "praise" for our choices! He is no "cause" at all! We are the sole causes of all our good choices and deeds!

Calvinists do not believe that the will of God in regard to the non-elect is the same as the elect. We do not say that the individual evil choices and acts of men are God's working in the non-elect for the purpose of God rejecting or discrediting himself.

It is really an old argument from the Libertarians to argue that any praise God gives to his creatures cannot be valid praise unless the creature do the praiseworthy deed without God, without his causation, i.e., by "free will." Again, where is this scriptural? Where is the verse that says praise can only occur when the creature acts out of his own free will and ability? That is another enthymeme that is not scriptural. If one reads the New Testament epistles, one sees how the apostles praised Christians for every virtue and spiritual grace, and yet, at the same time, did not hesitate to avow that these virtues and graces were the sovereign free gifts of God.

From what you are arguing, God is not to be praised for our virtues and graces, for our good deeds! He gets no credit or praise at all!

Also, you are wrong to think it absurd for God, a Potter, to create a vessel, then to purposefully destroy it, so that he might remake it! Why can't a Potter make a vessel with the intent of destroying it? Do we not do that even ourselves? Suppose I wanted to teach a child the meaning of the word "destruction." I want to do this by acting out the meaning of the word for the student. So, I create a vessel out of clay, then, before the face of my students, I break it. I tell them, that is what it means to "destroy" something. By your logic, however, a Potter never would create something for the purpose of destroying it.

People destroy things all the time also to demonstrate their rights of sovereignty, and their strength to do so. In other words, people say, "it belongs to me. I will prove it by destroying it!" Or, "I will break this concrete block to demonstrate my power."

Further, you put limits on the Potter! You say he cannot make it into whatever he pleases! You deny him his right and sovereignty to make the clay into something ignoble and with inferior ends or a low destiny! What law exists that limits the heavenly Potter from making creatures to either high or low destiny? Why do you put rules upon the Potter?

Nearly all free will advocates say God CANNOT make any creature without the intent of making that creature's ultimate happiness and well being the highest or "prime objective." But, where is this rule that God must abide by when he creates a living being? Who wrote the law that says to God - "God, you cannot create any creature simply to destroy him, but you must only create a creature with his ultimate happiness as the end"?

"Herein lies the basis of much of your confusion. Our relationships with each other are not always analogous to our relationship with God. Our relationship with God and our interactions with God are different because God is our Creator and He has certain rights over us that we do not necessarily have over each other."

This is really ironic that you should argue this way. First of all, it was not I that tried to make our relationships with each other analogous, in every respect, to our relationship with God? It was YOU, not I! I was the one who rebutted your doing so by saying that you Arminians err in doing this very thing! You make the wooing of a spouse the only type of analogy that is used for the conversion or salvation experience! I showed you how that lone analogy is insufficient, and if taken by itself, yeilds the kind of Arminian perversions you parrot.

This paragraph of yours is what Calvinists are saying, and you contradict what you elsewhere say. In fact, if I only had the above words of yours to read, I would think you were a Determinist or Calvinist. It is you who deny God superior rights to do what he pleases. You certainly deny him the right to make "vessels UNTO dishonor"! Or, the "wicked for the day of evil"!

"Allowing us to act and holding us accountable for those acts does not violate His nature."

Neither does his creating vessels to destruction violate his nature, as you suppose. God raised up Pharoah in order to do with him as he did. The destiny of Pharoah was decided by God before he was born. God hating Esau before he was born, and not for any evil thing he did, also does not violate the nature of God.

"In your view God creates us without the ability to do anything that God does not make us do and then holds us accountable for actions that He irresistibly determines us to do."

You keep saying that such teachings are my teachings, but I have shown that I am saying nothing that scripture does not plainly say.

I believe no man can "do" anything without "power." Do you agree or disagree? If it takes "power" to "do" anything, from whence comes "power"? Did I not cite Colossians 1: 16-18 wherein God is said to create all things? I will address this more fully later, but for now, let me say that the passage clearly puts "powers" in the category of "all things." You want to limit "all things" to all material things. But, "all things" is not limited, in this passage, nor the other passages where the term is used, in the New Testament, to "all material things." Your adding of the adjective "material" to the apostolic statement regarding "all things" is an addition to the word of God and puts a limit upon what was intended to be unlimited. You could also "interpret" "all things" to mean "all good things," or all "holy things," etc. But, Paul used no such adjectives, did he? In fact, clearly your use of the adjective "material" is not warranted, for Paul lists some of the categories included in the "all things," mentioning "thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers." Are these material things? Are there only good powers but no evil powers? Are there only material thrones? Are there only only heavenly dominions?

It seems you have the same problem that you attempt to impute to the Determinists! You say that Calvinists believe that God determines to create a man for an evil destiny and imply that it is not "just" for God to do so or to hold him accountable for his predetermined deeds. But, again, that is a non sequiter. Did you not say that you believed that God had absolute foreknowledge of all future events? Then, let me ask you these rhetorical questions, assuming God's foreknowledge.

If God foresees an event will occur, can it fail to occur? Or, if God says that something will occur in the future, can if fail to occur? If God foresaw that Ben would die without having been converted, and yet goes ahead and creates him anyway, knowing his destiny, how have you "exonerated" God from all causality? How have you escaped your own dilemma?

Besides the other scriptures I have cited that show what you deny and abhor, let me cite this other verse that destroys your unbelief and your unfounded enthememes.

"But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed..." (II Peter 2: 12 KJV)

"I believe that God created the universe and nothing happens that God does not either cause or permit. You call my knowledge of “causality” little, but I am trying to work with normal definitions. If you want to expand and stretch a definition to the point that includes things that are contrary to it, then we are not going to be able to have an intelligent conversation. If you want to say that permission is the same as causality then you need to demonstrate that and not just assert it or appeal to what Aristotle thought on the matter."

You have here come much closer to Determinism than you think! Nothing can happen without either God causing it or permitting it! Thus, all we really have to do then is discuss honestly the nature of this divine permission, a thing I have been trying to do in a "here a little, there a little" manner. I have already demonstrated many instances where "permission" is a kind of "causation." I have also demonstrated where inaction is a cause of things, and therefore worthy of condemnation as sin, as in the case of the "priest" who "passed by" the wounded soul and was eventually helped by the "good Samaritan." Yes, we have discussed this, but the parable demonstrates that inaction is a sin in certain cases. That is why we have "good Samaritan laws," to punish such inaction. In such cases "inaction" is a cause of blame and punishment.

You promote the idea that somehow God's permission cannot in any way be equated with his "will." Is permission not a man's will? If I permit a man to enter my house, have I not willed it? Could the demons have gone into the herd of swine without the permission of Christ? Here I might carry forward what I said about the "but for" argument used to prove "responsibility" (causality, contributing, or otherwise).

Arminian free willers, and non-determinists, argue that God creates evil and sin by simply "withdrawing" his gifts, or his restraints, etc. They say God is not "at fault" or a "cause" of the sin because he did not directly or efficiently cause it, but simply withdrew something from the sinner that ultimately made him sin. Then, they try to do the impossible by saying, "but this does not mean God in any way caused the sin." Any philosopher or logician knows how absurd and illogical is such reasoning. Who will avow that the removal of restraints and powers did not, in some sense, cause the sin? Such logic would be equivalent to a man who argues before a judge - "your honor, I did not cause the man to fall off the ladder, I merely removed the ladder from under him."

I think what you say about permission and causality, in the above last words of yours on this subject, simply verifies my charge that your knowledge of the laws of causality are a cause (pun intended) for your confusion.

But, again, I will have a few more words on causality shortly as I address some of your other words on this topic, from your last writing.

"But, then again, you seem to believe that ability has nothing to do with responsibility."

Here again, we see how the "devil is in the definitions." If we define "responsibility" as being synonymous with "ability to respond," then I will affirm that no man has ability to respond unless God give him that ability. As I said, Paul taught that all "powers" are the creation of God. I believe, like all Calvinists, that Adam had an ability to respond to God that we do not have as fallen sinners of his corruptible seed. We have lost that ability to respond. Yet, we are still responsible because we were once responsible in Adam. I therefore think that people are rather thinking of the term, morally speaking, as meaning the same as "accountability" or "guilt" or "blame." The question then, for bible students, is - "what are the elements of accountability?" In what does it consist? On what basis?

If we look at the verses referred to by me already, it is clear that a man is accountable to God by decree, by the intention or designation by the Potter. Besides, there is vicarious responsibility, as we see in Christ and in Adam.

"That God foreknew that we would choose to disobey Him does not make Him culpable for our disobedience since God did not cause that disobedience. God’s foreknowledge is not causative."

I have already addressed this and shown it to be illogical and unscriptural. I haved shown how God's foreknowledge does make him the cause of all things, but you are the one who adds the idea of "culpability" in regards to God, a thing I find impossible. Further, you have not shown how the bible or logic proves that God is not, in any sense, the "cause of all things." In fact, you have virtually admitted that God is the cause of all things, for you have said that nothing comes to pass without God either directly causing it or permitting it. And, I have shown that this kind of divine permission, being essential to the occurrence of any event, must therefore be viewed as a cause of the event.

God allows things and is not culpaple, true. Men permit things also and are, however, culpaple, as I have shown. God allows things and he is responsible. But, this is not an "either or" situation, as you wrongly imagine. You seem to think that either God is responsible or the creature is responsible, and that they cannot be both responsible, yet in differing senses.

God's foreknowledge is indeed causative. The scriptures demonstrate this abundantly. But, as this is already quite long, I will not flood you with scripture citations, but favor you only with this sampling.

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jeremiah 1: 5)

That foreknowledge of Jeremiah did not cause his existence? Did not God cause his existence? Also, does not the Greek word for "foreknowlege" mean more than bare prescience, and includes the idea of foreordination?

"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." (Acts 15: 18 KJV)

The question really is this - "does God foresee any events or effects of which he is not the ultimate first cause?" And, -"can anything come into existence apart from the will, foreknowledge, and predestination of God?

You also favor the idea of two wills with regard to the will of God by your belief in the "permissive" will of God. You have decretal or non-permissive will, and permissive will. When you give reluctant permission, are you not one possessed of two wills, one of which is superior? You do not want your child to do something, but, you give them permission anyway, for you think that they need their freedom, thus you are conflicted in your will regarding them when you give reluctant permission, correct?

"Actually, Paul goes on to explain this further in a way that perfectly conforms to Arminian theology:

“For who makes you different than anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you did not?” (1 Cor. 4:7)

So the reason they cannot boast is because they have only received what they have. They did not work for it or earn it. In the same way, we cannot boast in our salvation because we have only received it as a free gift from God. Faith excludes boasting because it is the receiving of a free gift that is not deserved or earned. Paul does not say that they have no basis for pride because the gift is received irresistibly."

But, you fail to apply Paul's rhetorical question as to why one "received" the gift and another did not. I offer two men a gift, and one actually receives that gift, but, "who or what made the difference?" You still attribute the ultimate reason to the creature himself, making him the author of his own salvation, a "first cause" of things, a thing that can only be said of God himself, and the one who makes himself different from another. Don't you see? Besides, you seem to imply, by your logic, that no one can "receive" something both passively and actively. When you "received" your name, or your first breath, was it comparable to "receiving" an offered gift?

"I have no problem setting myself up against them (Aristotle and writers on causality) since the Word of God contradicts them. They are wrong. Why are you so certain that they are right? Because it seems to support your beliefs? Do you also believe that science has proven that we are just a cosmic accident and the results of random mutations which took place over millions of years? Do you dare “set yourself against” the atheistic evolutionary scientific community?

And let us suppose that they are right to let people off the hook because their wills are not free due to the control of social, psychological, and environmental factors. How then could we ever condemn anyone for any crime at all? And if divine determinism is correct then there is no difference between the Harvard grad with good parents who murders someone and the kid who grew up in Harlem in a broken home surrounded by drug pushers who murders someone. In both cases their will was determined by God, and so neither of them should be responsible."

I will address causality further in just a minute when I notice your rebuttal of the passages I brought up to prove God was the cause, the only first cause, of all things. But, I do wish to say this; I do not believe that the scientific community has "proven" that this world is a cosmic accident or that evolution is a fact of history. But, science, or more properly perhaps, philosophy, has demonstrated that every effect must have a cause, a fact which you seem to deny, affirming that choices have no determining causes. But, I will address this point shortly.

The word of God is our guide in judging effects by their immediate or instrumental causes, not human logic. Thus, as a jurist, sitting in trial for a violation of the law, I should take notice of the various "causes" that brought about the violation. And, we do show leniency based upon an analysis of these causes. God's secret will is not a consideration in such cases, but only his revealed will in scripture which prescribes our duties in these cases. Further, our ability to condemn a person is not the same as God's ability to condemn them.

"Not at all. The free-agent is free to use his powers however he decides. But he is the cause of his actions. His actions are not “uncaused.” They are caused by him. You have misunderstood how Arminians understand free-agency. That, unfortunately, is not uncommon among Calvinists."

The man controls the will and the will controls his actions - this is what you are avowing. What part of the "man" controls his will? His flesh and blood? His body? His understanding? His affections? Besides, who causes the man? Is man a first cause of himself and of his own actions? Are there two "first causes" then in the universe? Rather, many?

"I believe that God did create us to love Him. That is our purpose. It is to love and worship Him and give Him glory. God is best glorified when His creatures freely love and worship Him. How is God glorified by making His creatures love Him? However, if love is defined as something that one must freely do, then God cannot make us love Him."

You have me confused here. When God made Adam, did he make him with love for him, or did he make him without this love, and then, after making him, win him over to love him? If you take the former view, then it destroys all you said about God not being able to create love for him. From your statement above, you seem to believe that when God made Adam, he put him in a state of indifference and equilibrium, at first, without either love or hate for God, and then later brought him to love him.

About God not being able to make us to love him, I have already shown how this is false, in many ways.

You ask - "how is God glorified in making his creatures love him?" However, I have already shown you how this is the only way he can be glorified, for any man loving God. You think God is glorified when a sinnner, on his own, comes to love God? Is this not rather the glorification of the sinner?

"Romans 11:36- God created all things and everything that has been created owes its existence and allegiance to Him. It is not saying that God made sin."

Again, "all things" does not mean "some things." Is sin not a "thing"? Besides, what does it mean for a thing to be "of" or "from" something else? I believe Paul teaches that all things are "of God" in that God is the material, formal, or first cause of all things, that Paul is affirming what Jeremiah affirmed, that nothing can come to pass apart from God's will and secret counsel or decree. "Through him" would mean God is also the instrumental cause, and is similar to the verse in Colossians one that says "by him all things consist" or "are held together." "To him" indicates also that God himself is the "final cause" of "all things." Thus, I am only affirming what Paul clearly taught in this verse.

"1 Cor. 8:6 - Again, everything is created by God and owes its existence to Him. But God created all things “good” and created nothing evil. This passage is not speaking of decisions to rebel against God and corrupt His goodness. Rather, it is speaking of how God created and sustains His universe. “All things” has reference to created things and the passage is speaking of those things’ existence and not their actions. That you call this passage into service demonstrates how weak your position is."

But, is evil not included in "all things"? Why do you take away from the word of God with such additions and "interpretations"? God created nothing "evil"? Why do the scriptures say otherwise? (See Isaiah 45: 7 & Amos 3: 6) Again, you seem to believe there are a category of "things" that are not created, or at least, not created by God. Do you believe in more than one Creator, then? Are powers created things? Are thoughts and actions? Events? Are principalities and thrones and dominions created things? Are they all good?

"Col. 1:16-18- Same as above. The context is even more obvious than that in 1 Cor.8:6 and Rom. 11:36 with regards to what is being described: creation and its existence, not the sinful actions of God’s creatures. Weak."

Same as above also for me! Further, the "context" shows that the "all things," the all things created, are not things confined to the material world!

"Of course not. I must not be correctly understanding it because it doesn’t fit with your determinism. I gave you an alternative interpretation for Rev. 17. You don’t accept it, and that is fine, but at least I tackled the passage instead of waving it off as you have."

Your "alternative interpretation" was no interpretation at all, but a twist on the obvious meaning of the text. I still affirm that you refuse to believe in a God who can do what he did there and still be just and holy and good.

"James makes it plain that we should never imagine that God tempts us because to think such of God is improper and impossible. Yet, your determinism is even worse than accusing God of temptation since at least temptation can be resisted. In your view God just causes us to sin in a way that is irresistible and then punishes us for it."

"Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." (James 1: 12-15 KJV)

This verse is not denying that God is the cause of all things. This verse is not denying that God never, in any sense, tempts a man. "God did tempt Abraham." "Then was he led of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." Was the Spirit of God involved in the temptation of Christ? Yes, it was the will of the Spirit of God for Christ to be tempted. You also affirm that it was the will of God that Adam and Eve be tempted, for you allow that he was there by the will of God.

Thus, what James is saying is that all succomb to temptation because of something residing within the man, what is called his "lust" or sinful nature and passions. A man sins, not because he is tempted, for Christ was tempted and did no sin, but because he succombs to the temptation. I will give an example, of cases dealing with lawful setups or entrapments set for criminals by the police. Police departments routinely will have an undercover cop pretend to be a prostitute in order to catch those who pay for prostitution. They tempt these kinds of criminals. Now, when a person succombs to the temptation, who or what was the cause of the man giving in to the temptation? Was it the temptation itself? Was the intent of the cops, in tempting these criminals, to get these criminals to do these crimes because they want these crimes committed? No, they are doing it to expose and to catch them. The man who succombed to the temptation of the prostitute, put there by the cops (God), is not the reason or the condemnable cause of the crime. Don't you see?

"It may be that our happiness can only come when we freely choose to love and obey God. If that is the case then happiness would be contingent on free-will and Adam could not have been happy. Though Adam could still be happy in Eden if he had not decided to rebel against God. Either way, God did not cause Adam’s sin and is not responsible for it. Adam could not have sinned if God did not create the universe, and yet God declared that all he created was “good.” God did not intend for Adam to sin and He did not cause Adam to sin. Therefore, God is not responsible for Adam’s sin."

Some of the these things I have already addressed. However, let me address the other things you mention. By your view of things, Adam was not happy the moment God created him, for God cannot create happiness in a man. Happiness with God can only come for Adam later, after he is created, according to your view, by his free will decision.

"The difference between me and you, IMO, is that you blaspheme God by making Him the cause of sin, something Scripture plainly contradicts, and I do not."

If I blaspheme God, then so did the prophets and apostles. I say nothing other than what the scriptures plainly say and demonstrate.

"I do not believe that God treats everyone equally. I do not believe that circumstances cannot limit our freedom, or that God cannot limit our freedom by circumstances. I do not believe that everyone gets the same exact opportunity to hear or respond to the gospel. I do believe that God holds us responsible for what we can do and how we do respond to Him in whatever circumstances God puts us in. I even believe that God sometimes overrides man’s will to accomplish things. I do not, however, believe that God ever overrides man’s will to deliberately sin against Him. So, I, like most Arminians, believe that God gives us a measure of free-will and allows us to make moral decisions and judges us accordingly. I do not believe that God gives us unlimited free-will as you seem to think."

It is amazing that you cited no scripture to prove all your conjectures. I again see you make many statements here that are Deterministic and contrary to your other statements. You talk about degrees of free will! God gives some a "measure of free will"? God does not treat all alike! Well, welcome to the Calvinist camp!

"Not sure what “position” you have uncovered. I don’t preach salvation apart from the gospel and faith as I said, “It may be that if they respond to the grace given that God will work things out so that they will eventually hear the gospel.” All of it is speculation and it is unwise to build doctrines on speculation and “secret decrees” of which the Bible says nothing. That is a backwards and dangerous hermeneutic, as your conclusions that God causes sin plainly demonstrate."

The "position" was the Arminian position that says that God must give everyone an equal chance for salvation, that he equally desires the salvation of all men! If men must hear the gospel to be saved (they do), then all those who died without the gospel died without opportunity for salvation, and this dispoves much of what Arminians write upon the justice, fairness, and equality of God's dealings, when battling the Calvinists.

I rather think it is the Arminian who routinely gets into conjecture and unbiblical definitions. Where, for instance, does the bible say the will of man is free? Where does it say that God is not the cause of all things?

Yours sincerely and for the truth,

Stephen