Free Will & Determinism Debate IV

Stephen,

"I just do not have the time to argue philosophy with you which is what this exchange has become primarily concerned with. You think that I am not a philosopher and a lousy logician, and I am fine with that."

Well, Ben, if you think this is a waste of time, then you are of course free to spend your time in more profitable ways. Secondly, your statement is what we call a "pot shot." You "insinuate" that my writing has all been in order to "argue philosophy" and further insinutate that "philosophy" is a bad thing, meaning there is no good philosophy. Or, are you just using a "motive" word for the purpose of simply "stirring" emotion and prejudice?

I suspect that you think it is "philosophy" to talk about effects and causes. Correct? And "philosophy" to talk about causality? I guess the bible writers did not have a philosophy about cause and effect? One that is evident in their writings, and in their reasonings?

I do think your reasoning is fallacious. That is hopefully the reason why we engage each other, so that we might find the uncontradictory truth.

"You have overwhelmed me with proof texts which would take a great deal of time to explain why I believe that you are misunderstanding those passages and using them improperly. I am not looking to get into a proof text battle so I will just focus on the passages that I brought up initially and the passage that you began this conversation with, make a few other quick points, and leave it there. When I have more time I may devote a post at my blog to examining some of the passages you quote which you seem to think support your position."

First, I am guilty for relying on philosophy or reason, and then guilty for appealing to scripture? I think the first comment I made to you was that I believed in divine determinism because it was taught in the bible. The fact that reason and philosophy also lead to the same truth is secondary.

I also told you in the beginning that there were hundreds of verses that taught divine predestination of all things. I think the few verses I have cited prove it and you have not cited any verses that contradicted the ones I cited nor did you show where the verses did not teach what I showed that they clearly did.

Revelation 17:17:

“For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled.”

This is the passage which you have held up as a proof text for determinism. You have suggested that God irresistibly controlled the will of these kings in order to accomplish his purpose. You have concluded from this that God always controls the wills of all His creatures, even to sin and do evil (since you seem to see God controlling these kings to do evil in this passage). I have several problems with the conclusions that you draw from this single passage, some of which I have already shared. Allow me to review and then point out some more difficulties with the view that this passage teaches that God controls the will of His creatures even to evil.

First, as I have already noted, the passage does not say that God controlled their wills. It only says that He put it into their hearts (or minds) to share a common purpose."

Are you saying then that the act of God ('putting into their hearts') was not the cause of the effect? If this act of God was not a cause, or the cause, then what was the cause? Do you believe that when God put this into the heart that he could not be certain of the effect?

Yes, and what was that "common purpose"? "To agree" (or become confederate or allied together, or to allign under the mastermind) and "TO give their kingdoms to the beast." How can you make this a good act on the part of these wicked kings? Again, they meant if for evil. God meant it for good. But, you want to now interpret the verse to mean that both the wicked kings and God both meant it for good!

"This common purpose was secured in the fact that they gave their kingdoms to the beast. The passage does not say that the kings necessarily yielded to what God put in their hearts to do (i.e., God did not control their wills irresistibly, but only influenced them)."

I suppose this answers the question I asked you above, where I asked you - "do you believe that when God put this into the heart that he could not be certain of the effect?"

Did God "influence" them without knowing for sure whether that influence would do what the influence was designed to do? Besides, tell us what was the end of this divine "influence"?

You want to say that God influenced these men to do what they did but that he did not cause them to do what they did. You even think that this is a great point and matters a great deal.

"Second, their wills and desires were already in line with those of the beast so God did not influence them to sin (since He did not give them those desires). They were already in allegiance with the beast in their hearts before God put it in their hearts to give their kingdoms to the beast. God only influenced them to make tangible the allegiance which was already in their hearts so that God could accomplish His purpose. The transference of power is not immoral in and of itself. That is all that God influenced them to do. Any evil motivation for that transference of power or allegiance was not caused by God, but already resided in the hearts of the kings."

Here you show how reluctant you are to face the music of the plain text and what it reveals about the sovereignty of God. And here you again end up making the wicked kings into good men who do righteousness, and with the intent of pleasing and doing the will of God! You make their giving their sovereignties to the beast to be no sin at all. But, really, you try to have it both ways. You want to say it was no sin, no evil intention, that the wicked kings gave up their sovereignties to the beast, on the one hand, but then on the other, you seem to ackowledged that it was sin but that God did not have anything to do with the sin occurring!

This incident is similar to what we see in Isaiah 10 with the wicked king of Assyria, who likewise does an evil thing in his devastations of the people, including Israel, for he does it with an evil heart and intention, and yet God means it for good, as a means of punishing and correcting his people, and so the record is "Howbeit he meaneth (intends) not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few." (Isaiah 10: 7)

There is no doubt some truth in what you are saying about the "modus operandi" of God in bringing all this about, through what you call the "transference of power." It recalls the words of the Psalmist who said:

"He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal subtilly with his servants." (Psalm 105: 25)

Yes, the Egyptians already had "hate" in their hearts, and the Lord directed it towards his people. But, still, the reason why the Egyptians hated the Israelites was because God turned their hearts to that end.

"Third, verse 13 tells us that these kings received their authority from the beast. So these kings are not even really yielding their kingdoms to the beast in a sense because the power and authority they have came from the beast in the first place."

But, that is simply not the case, brother. Verse thirteen is anticipatory of what takes place in verse 17, being the "hour" predicted. Again, are you not here trying to make the act of the kings a righteous deed?

"The emphasis, then, is on the fact that God put it in their hearts to exercise their power in line with the purpose of the beast (i.e., to cooperate with him to accomplish something). And what was that purpose? This is the key to understanding this passage. Verse 16 tells us what God was trying to accomplish:

“And the ten horns [kings] which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire.”

God put it into the hearts of the kings to be of one purpose with the beast to destroy the whore of Babylon. God was using the beast and the kings to exercise divine judgment on her (who probably represents the corrupt world system). So God put it in their hearts to do His will, which was to destroy Babylon (the great harlot). Was the destruction of Babylon a bad thing? No. It was a good thing for Babylon to be destroyed, an act of divine judgment, and it was that alone which God put into their hearts to accomplish. So God actually put it in their hearts to do a good thing, even if their intentions were not good!"

Any schoolboy ought to be able to see your great inconsistency. You again want to make the act of the wicked kings a good act! No sin at all! You seem to want to say that "the wicked kings meant it for good just as God meant it for good." What hermenuetics! Did the Assyrian king sin when he acted the tyrant? Just because God used the sin to his glory, and for good, you want to say his sin was no sin, just as you make the sin of the ten kings to be no sin.

"Fourth, even if God had irresistibly influenced them to be of one purpose it does not follow that this is always how God operates."

This is true, and I never said that the verse in Rev. 17:17 meant that this was true of every act of man's will. I cited this to show how "free will," the opposite of "determinism," was a myth and a falsehood, the verse here proving it, showing that God causes men to make choices.

But, first things first, can we agree that he does it in some cases? And, if we agree he does this in some cases, then can we agree that he diliberately decides in which cases to so act? The question is, would the ten kings have done their wicked deed without God's "influence" or "putting into their hearts" their intentions? If you say yes, then you make God's act meaningless and unnecessary. If you say no, then you make God a cause of the action of the kings by his action. But, perhaps this is too much "philosophy" and "logic" for you?

"In fact, the fact that the text specifically tells us that God put it into their hearts would seem to suggest that this is not how God usually operates. If God always controls man’s thoughts and will, then there would be no need to make a point of it here. The fact that the text makes a point of God’s involvement suggests that this is not always the case. So the text fails to support your concept of determinism on many levels and certainly fails to make God the author of sin."

This is perhaps your best point in all your apologetic utterances. But, notice that your argument is only a possible "implication," not a necessary inference. It might "suggest" such and such to you, but any logician knows that it cannot be proven either way, from this verse alone, whether this is God's normal way of dealing with men or whether it is exceptional.

You keep saying that determinism makes God the author of sin. I have already addressed that and do not need to rehash it. Who do you believe is the author of sin? Man? Satan? Who is the author of the authors? Again, you make man a god when you make him a first cause of himself, and when you give him the powers you give to him.

1 Corinthians 10:13:

“No temptation has overtaken you but such as common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able to bear, but with the temptation will provide a way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.”

I made the point that this passage implicitly teaches the power of contrary choice and therefore destroys determinism."

Brother, the word "choice" is not even in the passage. It does tell us that God does something to bring about a certain end result in the lives of his people. The big question then is simply this - Does God fail to accomplish his purposes? Can you give a scriptural example where God gave a man power in Christ to overcome temptation but who did not overcome it?

"God is faithful to give us the power to endure and overcome (escape) temptation. So when we are tempted we are able to resist. If we yield to temptation (as many do), then it is because we decided to submit to the temptation, rather than to the grace God provided for us to escape that temptation."

Yes, and by your view this act, this effect, this decision or choice of the sinner, did not have a cause! Or rather, the man himself is the cause of himself! I can see why you decry philosophy for you do not believe in basic science/philosophy that says that every action (effect) must have a cause.

"In your view, if we sin, it is because God determined that we should sin and we could not possibly do otherwise than to sin."

In one sense yes, but in another sense, no. Even you agree that God determined it. You just try to have it both ways, speaking contradictorily. You have said that nothing comes to pass without God "permitting" it. When you can show that God permitting is not God willing and purposing, then you will have a point. Further, when you show that God can say "I will not permit that to happen" and yet it happen anyway, then you will have a point. If you admit that God's "permission" is absolutely necessary for the occurrence of an event, then you make God's permission a cause of the event.

Was this not true in the case of Job? Who caused the calamities of Job? God or the devil? Or both? The devil was the immediate agent or cause, the secondary cause, correct? Also, if we ever had a case of what is involved in divine "permission" it is here in the case of Job. God permitted the devil to do what he did. The devil could not have done what he did without God's willing or permitting it. But, Ben does not want to say that God's permitting it caused it! God was not a cause or responsible at all! Did not Job ascribe the events to God?

Do you believe that God can forsee a man committing a sin and that sin not come to pass?

"Yet this passage teaches that when we are tempted and sin, we did not have to sin. We could have escaped it and endured temptation since God is faithful. You must, then, either deny that our sins are pre-determined by God (since we can avoid sin which determinism denies), or deny that God is faithful (when Paul says that God provides a way of escape and will not let us be tempted beyond what we can bear [i.e., resist], he is not telling us the truth. God would not be faithful since we actually cannot bear temptation when we sin since God pre-determined that we should fall to it)."

This passage is addressed to Christians. It is they who are given power to overcome temptation. It is not talking about a prevenient grace type of power given to all men in natural birth.

You also imply that if we can prove that a man cannot avoid sinning, then determinism is true, for you see it as integrally connected. But, does Peter not say of the wicked reprobates, that "they cannot cease from sin"? (II Peter 2: 14) Sounds like, in some sense at least, that some mens sins are inevitable.

Notice that the passage seems to guarantee success. God in his faithfulness does two things, both in order to insure preservation. First, he gives power to overcome temptation. Note also that the giving of this power is viewed as the one thing needed to bring about the end result. Second, God keeps the temptations and trials within the limits of the power he gives, and why? Or for what end and purpose? Is it not in order that his people might not be overcome by temptation? To say that the child of God can so resist these efforts of God, or that God will fail in these methods of preserving his people, is to read into the texts what is not there.

James 1: 12-15

"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."

I brought up this passage because you make God the cause of our sins. James tells us that we should not even think that God tempts us since God never tempts any man. Yet, your determinism makes God worse than a tempter since temptation can be “endured” (vs, 12, cf. 1 Cor. 13:10 above) and God’s irresistible causation (determinism) cannot be resisted. So God becomes worse than the devil since the devil can only tempt us to sin where God actually causes us to sin (irresistibly)."

But you also make God the cause of sin by your view on divine permission. You agree that sin cannot occur without God's permission.

Besides, I have already addressed your points here and you are just rehashing old arguments and appealing to popular prejudice, not to the word of God.

I could return the "pot shot" and say that you dethrone God and you will soon be in the "open theism" camp if you continue down the road you are on. You will end up denying the omnipotence and omniscience of God.

Your response:

"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."

God tested Abraham’s faith and obedience. He did not tempt Abraham to sin. The Holy Spirit did not tempt Christ in the wilderness. Satan did."

Again, any schoolboy should see how you squirm and are like a roving meteor without a fixed position. You are failing to remember the point we are disagreeing about, are you not? Remember, you are affirming that God is, IN NO SENSE, the "CAUSE" of sin or any evil. Remember? Are you saying then that the Holy Spirit was not a cause in Christ being tempted? Are you saying that it was not the will of God for the devil to tempt him? Of course it was not the will of God that Christ succomb to the temptation! But, it was a temptation to sin! Why do you manifest a reluctance to admit that we are often led by the Spirit to be tempted to sin? That it is God's will that we be tempted? You say that the devil tempted Christ according to the eternal will of God? Welcome again to the predestinarian camp!

Killing your son would not be a sin? If it was no sin, then why was there any mental struggle for Abraham? If it was a good deed, why his "trial"?

"It was God’s will for Christ to affirm His true identity in that testing and to be able to sympathize with our being tempted, but it was not God who tempted Christ."

Who is building a "straw man" now? What Calvinist or determinist believes that God did the actual tempting? But, in your statement you admit that it was God's will for Satan to tempt Christ! Of course, it was not God's will for Satan to succeed! This verse reminds us again of the story of Job. Who killed the children of Job? Satan! Could Satan have killed them without God's permission, against his will?

"It was also an opportunity for Christ to affirm His love and commitment to the Father’s mission for Him on earth. In a similar way, God did allow for Satan to tempt Adam and God used this as a vehicle to test Adam’s obedience and faith."

My my, how close you are to the predestinarian view! You here have sin or evil viewed as having purpose, or a good end. Elsewhere, in your Arminian writings, you seem to think the fall of man was unforeseen, undesired by God, and served no purpose! God can use evil to bring about good!

"However, God did not cause Satan to tempt Adam, nor did He tempt Adam to sin."

God did not "cause" it in any sense? Don't you see where this position has you often contradicting yourself? Could Satan have entered the garden when God sovereignly willed and decreed - "you shall not enter"? Was Satan there or not there by God's permission? Could Satan have been there without this permission?

Again, of course, God did not do the actual tempting, but it was obviously God's will that Satan tempt our parents.

"God also told Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Was He tempting Adam to sin by denying him this fruit, or testing his obedience and giving Adam an opportunity to prove his love and faithfulness to God?"

The temptation, proper, was when Satan conversed with Eve and enticed her to eat. The command of God not to eat was not the temptation.

Had Adam not sinned, and no sin had occurred, would God have been more glorified, more revealed, than he is and will be because Adam sinned? Will you answer that? Would there have been a second Adam without the fall of the first Adam? When God made the first Adam, was it with the intention of bringing about the existence of the second Adam?

"You went on to say:

"Thus, what James is saying is that no one succombs 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."

And you seem to hope that we will forget that according to your theology it is God who causes those lusts and makes sure that we succumb to temptation."

Yes, man would not exist without God. Man also would have no power to sin without God. And, you agree, no man can sin or do anything without the sufferance of God. So, you too believe that God is a cause.

"So what you are saying is that a man sins not because God tempts him to sin, but because God makes him sin by controlling his will and lusts and ensuring that he succumbs to those lusts. And you think that was James’ point?"

Man sins because he has an inner sinful nature called his "lusts." God permits or wills that men be tempted, or entrapped, as I demonstrated by analogy, but that entrapment is not the immediate or condemning cause of the sin, but the lusts. James is saying that men are not being forced against their wills to sin, or wholly from without themselves, and even though there are various causes to sin, the chief cause of blame lies in the man's lust.

"Worse yet, James does not say, “no one should say that they sin because God tempts them” as you are implying. The verse plainly says, “No one should say that God is tempting me.” This is because God does not draw us away from Him. We draw ourselves away by our own lusts. But again, in your view there is no difference since God controls our desires and lusts."

Again, however, you are being repetitious and I do not need to follow you in this.

You then went on to give a rather strange example:

"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?"

Look carefully at this paragraph. It goes against all that you have been arguing for since the beginning of our discussion. You now affirm my view for the sake of trying to avoid the plain implications of James 1:12-15. You say the man is responsible for the crime and not the cops even though the cops provided the environment and opportunity for the crime. Do you not realize that you have just conceded the entire argument? And again, you want us to forget that in your scheme the cops (God) are the reason and condemnable cause of the crime if they are to be compared to God as you have described Him, since God pre-determined their sin and controlled their actions and lusts so that they could not do anything other than commit the crime."

Brother, I have from the very first argued for various kinds of causes. Have you forgotten that? You just cannot see how there can be more than one cause to an effect, do you?

"So James says that we are to blame for being tempted because we indulge our sinful nature and lusts and allow them to gain control over us. But you say that God determines and causes our lusts to gain control over us."

God causes them in a sense! Man's lust also causes his sin. Again, you should learn more about causality instead of being biased against the study.

"After all, you deny the power of self-determination. Therefore, when we submit to our lusts and allow ourselves to be enticed, we are not in control of our actions. We cannot do otherwise. God alone is in control and controls us to sin. He causes us to be enticed and overcome by lust. The very opposite of what James was teaching, and a truly blasphemous doctrine."

Brother, it is the bible that teaches that God is the decider of every man's destiny. For you to deny it is your grave error.

Don't you believe that the ten kings, in a sense, could not do otherwise? Don't you believe that those who crucified Christ could not do otherwise?

God causing it does not eliminate blame. In fact, God is the one who "assigns" blame and accountability.

God is in control and men are, in some degree, in control of certain things. But, to take man's limited control outside of the paradigm of God's overall control, is not scriptural nor logical. Is "control" a "thing," by the way? Is that one of the "all things" he has created? One of the things that "consist" because of his will? Can a man have control if God does not give it to him?

Concerning Col. 1:16-18, 1 Cor.8:6 and Rom. 11:36:

These passages simply will not give you what you want. They teach that God is the source of all existence. Yes, this includes immaterial things like the power of the will. God did create us with the power of choice. But he is not responsible for the abuse of that power for sin and disobedience. He created all of his holy angels and gave them power as well. They corrupted that power and are to blame for their corruption. That God created them and sustains their existence does not mean that God corrupted them or caused them to sin. He created the power but did not create the abuse of that power. This is all very basic and obvious to me and I am a little surprised that you are still trying to hold up these passages as proof texts for your position."

You at first argued that "all things" meant all "material" things. Now you have amended your view. Good. Now, let us amend it further.

God gave a man power to sin but God is not in any sense the cause resulting from the giving of that power? That is ludicrous.

Also, your view that nothing can come to pass without the permission of God makes all your apologetic in this last paragraph your own problem (although I am not admitting any real problem).


"Sin is not a created thing. It is a corruption of God’s creation."

Good Lord! Ben believes sin is "nothing"! Well, let me ask you a few questions. 1) Is to cause a thing the same as to create a thing? 2) Is to make a thing happen the same as to create a thing? 3) Is the opposite of sin (righteousness or obedience) a thing? 4) Is corruption a thing? 5) Is sin a "power"? 6) Is sin a "principality"? 7) Is sin a "throne"? 8) Is sin a "dominion"?

"God, therefore, gets all the glory for the beauty and goodness of His creation and we get all the blame for corrupting that creation and perverting His righteousness."

Who denies this? I really believe you should spend time looking into the philosophical and theological definitions for words such as guilt, blame, responsibility, accountability, etc. You seem to think that it is possible for God to be "blamed" and be "guilty." Is there some law that God is under? On which side of the "Euthyphro dilemma" are you? Do you reject the "divine command" view? God causes all things but God cannot be blamed for he is under no law. Besides, part of God's own apologetic for evil is that he has purposed to bring the greatest good out of it. This evil serves a purpose, and is a necessary means. You, however, see none of these blessed truths.

"Should we praise God for corrupting His own creation and then blaming and eternally punishing those made in His image for what God has done? According to you, that is part of what Paul was affirming in these passages."

It is clearly what Paul taught in Romans chapter nine and what is taught in many places in the bible, some of which I have already cited. For instance, "he has made all things for himself, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Remember?

"It is simply not the natural way to read them, nor does it fit the contexts, and I have personally never met a single person, nor read a single commentary that understood “all things” to include the sinful actions of God’s creatures."

Well, assuming you are correct, this is nothing but ad hominem argumentation and carries nothing. But, it is not true. Many able commentators have interpreted the verses I have cited the same way.

"This is proof-texting of the worse sort and very weak proof-texting at that. For your numerous other proof-texts, you just assume a Calvinistic interpretation and call that the plain meaning of the text. Of course I disagree and would offer alternate interpretations for all of those passages. But I don’t have the time. That is why proof-texting is so annoying in discussions like this."

Well, excuse me for citing scripture! As I recall, you brought up the first rebuttal scriptures, the one in I Cor. and in James. Did you not? Why is it then wrong for me to cite scripture? Also, I don't think I am twisting verses. I think the verses I cited speak for themselves and they only need to be "reinterpreted" and "re-translated" by you.

"Your last post demonstrates a misunderstanding of much of what I was saying and you have jumped to many conclusions and often argued against a position that I do not hold. Here is just one example:

I wrote:

"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."

And you responded with:

"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!"

I did not cite Scripture because I was not trying to proof-text, only explain my position to you so that you would not misrepresent it and argue against a straw man. I was not trying to prove my position through Scripture, only explain it for the purpose of clarification. And yet you chided me for not citing Scripture for all of my “conjectures” (as if you have always cited Scripture for your conjectures). You then continue to misrepresent and misunderstand me when you write, “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!” Please find where I said that God gives some a measure of free-will and not others. You can’t because I never said that. Here is what I said,

“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."

I did not say that God gives “some” a measure of free-will, but that God gives “us” (His creatures, i.e. all of us) a measure of free-will, and then went on to explain what I meant by saying that I do not believe that God gives “us” an “unlimited” free-will. My point was that I have no problem with God restricting our wills in certain areas."

Will you define those areas where it is okay for God to restrict our wills?

Also, what I meant to say was - "you believe God gives some a different measure of free will"? So, my fault for not being more clear. But, while there, let me ask you this - Do infants have this measure of free will at birth? Can he get more of it? Can he lose his measure? If so, how would he get it back? Also, is the man who is born a vegetable, or without cognition, have a measure of free will?

"Neither do most knowledgeable Arminians. We are not concerned with free-will for the sake of free-will as I mentioned previously. You want to make everything “all or nothing” and “either/or”."

No brother, ironically, it is you who want to make things an "either/or" in cases where it is not an either/or thing. I could give examples of this, but this is long enough already.

"This kind of simplistic thinking plagues Calvinism and makes the rest of us shake our heads in wonder at the inability of Calvinists to see anything in between. The subtleties and complexities of personal relationships are thrown out the window in favor of the simple “cause and effect” model."

Are you saying that the cause and effect model is invalid? Erroneous? That it will contradict other models?

About your personal relationship models, and about your false proposition that said that God cannot cause a man to love him, I have shown that to be false, have I not?

"The wonder and beauty of God’s grace to a fallen world is reduced to irresistible causation."

Brother, God is irresistable in the execution of his sovereign decrees! You deny God his omnipotence! Does not Paul affirm that no creature can resist God's will in Romans 9? Also, do you not believe that nothing can come to pass without God permitting it? Is this permission not irresistable causation, as in the case of Job?

"The sovereignty of God (including His sovereign right to create free moral agents) is reduced to cause and effect determination and meticulous control. God’s omniscience is reduced to “God can only know what He will cause to happen.” The Biblical definitions of faith and works are thrown out in favor of 16th century definitions which were prompted by an over-reaction to Catholicism and a failure to grapple with these terms in their historical contexts (e.g. “works” becomes “anything you do” and faith becomes a “work” since trusting is an act unless God irresistibly causes it, etc.) The glory of love and God’s interactions with His creatures all reduces to simple “cause and effect”. The desire for simplicity ironically leads to ridiculous and head spinning complexities and contradictions. The gnat gets strained out but the camel gets swallowed whole, and the simple and glorious gospel of Jesus Christ gets swallowed up by the “horrible” secret decree."

Again, you are repititious and I will not be. Also, have I not already shown you, in other comments, that your use of the word "awful" and "horrible," in regard to the words (translation) of Calvin, is wrong? Did I not say that "awful" meant "full of awe" and "horrible" meant "that which strikes terror" and not "repugnant"?

"So what are we left with? A God who is self-contradictory at His core. He says one thing while secretly ensuring the opposite. He says come, while secretly making sure that many cannot come."

Yes, and he told Pharoah, "let my people go" when it was not his secret will for Pharoah to do so. Again, what you say is true in a sense, and in a sense, it is not true.

"He makes people sin and then punishes them for it. He creates the “pots” for the purpose of “talking back” to Him and then rebukes them for doing so. He punishes His creatures for perfectly fulfilling His will doing what He decreed for them to do.When we argue with each other it is really just God arguing with Himself since He controls our thoughts and actions. God just loves to give Himself a hard time. And we must wonder how it is that we can possibly know if we are right about anything since truth is not something that we can discern since God controls our thoughts. We can never be certain of anything because God may be bending our thoughts towards falsehood. We can’t figure things out and discern truth because we have no control over our thoughts. Contradictions cannot even reveal error since God is contradictory at His core. You may think that you are discovering truth and sharing that truth with me but it may just as well be that God is deceiving you and causing you to embrace a lie and share that lie with me (but don’t worry, God will rightly punish you for your lying deceptions). So we have really wasted our time here, but then again, that is just how God decreed for it to be from all eternity. But then again, I am no philosopher so who cares what I think anyway."

Again, this is all rehash and really mostly non-sequiter prejudicial statements. It is also mostly taking "pot shots" and form no real solid argumentation from scripture or any self evident truths or propositions, and so this whole last paragraph is just your ranting against a God, whom you admit, permits everything that occurs to occur, and that this permission is necessary for the occurrence.