If God is NEVER informed by man, then please explain this...

[Skandelon]

I have neither the time nor desire to find posts.

Then don't make claims of my argument being answered on other posts because it does no good to make baseless claims.

If you want something addressed, state it plainly here or, at the very least, post a link.

I did state it plainly. You are the one insisting this particular argument has been addressed, so you are the one who carries the burden of providing a link, not me.

Your implication is that God gives the evil their desires. We certainly do not say so. Did God cause Cain to kill Abel? No. Did Cain act on his own fallen desire? Yes.

So where did the intent to kill originate? If in man (Cain) then God was informed by that intent, right? If not, explain your view. If God merely foreknows (as apposed to predetermine) that Cain would kill Able then God was INFORMED by something Cain originated in his own will. Is that your view?

Could Cain have done otherwise? I think so.

That is contra-causal freewill, which most Calvinists (compatibilists) deny.

He does, however, give that access to the life of Joseph--saying that his brothers did sin against him but that He (God) superintended that free and sinful action for good.

Right, through his foreknowing of their evil intent, not his predetermining of their evil intent. I think we are in agreement on this point, whereas Luke might take issue, right?

Though I don't fit the mold completely, I am an infralapsarian. And God does not merely know man's choices. In some way (a mysterious way) He has ordered all things. Like the writer of a movie script, He has determined the lines, the story-arc, etc. The Director, the Actors, etc. are free to play the assigned role according to their desires. But, their performance in no way changes the story or outcome of the movie.

I really don't think we are very far from each other then...

You, again, imply disparity where none exists. You have left no room for "sin" in the equation.

How am I leaving sin out of the equation by asking the origin of its intent? The intent to sin had to have an origin, right? Is it in God or man? If man, then how is God NOT informed by man?

You seem to want to assign personality to Evil. Evil (or sin) is the opposite or antithesis of God and His will. So, when God is disobeyed--like Adam and Eve did in the Garden--evil (or sin) comes into the world. I'm afraid you'd have us believe in the little red devil and the little angle on our shoulders--vying for our loyalty.

What have I specifically said to make you think this? I never gave any indication of believing this? I am asking about the origin of the desire to sin. The intent of Cain to kill Able had to have an origin. Agree or disagree? If not in God, then in his creature, and if in a creature then God must have been "informed" through foreknowledge of what the creature originally intended. If not, please explain...

It depends, I think, what you mean by "permissive decrees." From my reading of your posts, you want to make it that everything is covered by this elusive "permissive decree" and that God is reacting to all that is going on.

The Archangel

I've defined both God active decrees and permissive decrees several times on this board. How about you provide you definition and draw the distinction between the two?

 

[Skandelon]

Just a suggestion on this area about God. I would suggest that you just let it alone as no one is going to be able to give anything except their opinion including you. God is so far above our comprehension that even if He explained Himself in full to us we still could not accept it. Our ways are not His ways.

I agree, which is why I combat those who insist that a God who knows all things "PRIOR" to creating all things must have predetermined all things. This is one of the foundational logical arguments of the more deterministic Calvinists on this board and this is an attempt to address it by showing exactly what you are saying here. There is NO WAY in our finite minds to speculate as to what God has actively decreed (or predetermined) versus what he has merely foreknown and permitted. To presume divine foreknowledge is equated to predetermination is biblically unfounded.

 

[Skandelon]

What will you teach an eternal God?

Nothing. But did Satan's intent to become like God originate in the mind of God, or Satan? If Satan, then wasn't God informed by Satan's intent? If not, explain?

But here we go again with the rape of child scenario. For women and children, there can be no worse evil, but for the theologian who knows and loves God, the murder of God's Son is the pinnacle thereof. And God knew that His Son would be murdered. Not only did He know, but He ordained it before the foundation of the earth. And more, the earth was created to bring forth that act.

Does that mean God originated the evil intent of Israel to rebel and cry out "crucify him!" No.

It means that God FOREKNEW their rebellion and used it to bring about redemption for the world. There is a HUGE difference in the concept of God foreknowing evil intents and using them for his own purposes and the concept of God predetermining men's evil intent so that it could not be otherwise. The fact you are not willing or able to make that distinction only reflects that you really don't agree at all with Freeatlast's statement.

You have a very small view of God. Only in your teensy weensy little view of God, Dahmer's actions pose some problem. So to cope, you have to change God's glory into an image like to corruptible man.

Dahmer's actions DO pose a problem...its called SIN!!! Which God combats and overcomes through the blood of Christ, but you would have us to believe that such Sin originate in the mind of God and that the cross was just some puppet drama to answer something God himself made.

A small view of God is one that insists He must play both sides of the chess board to ensure a win. A small view of God thinks in order for Him to really be all powerful he has to be the puppet master pulling the strings of the righteous and the unrighteous. A small view of God poses him as a little boy playing with army men in the dirt controlling both the good guys and the bad ones so as to ensure victory in the battle.

A biblical view of God is one of a romantic God who wants to be pursued and loved. One who relents when beseeched...One who gives to those who are persistent...One who grows angry at rebellion, and compassionate for the humble. The bible reveals a God who weeps with us in our suffering, and intervenes when we cry. He is depicted as a general in an army who rises up to concur are real enemy... A father who runs to embrace a wayward child...

So, you can call all those "small" or "anthropomorphic" views of God if you wish...but I'll stand with the biblical revelations regardless of how you label and dismiss them.

You have to recreate Him into something like yourself who cannot know of some things until they happen or He is told.

I guess the writer of Exodus 32 also had a very small view of God and "recreated Him into something like himself" when he wrote: 9 "I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation." 11 But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. "O LORD," he said, "why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: 'I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.' " 14 Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened. 15 Moses turned and went down the mountain with the two tablets of the Testimony in his hands. They were inscribed on both sides, front and back.

He wrote this without any "Calvinistic" qualifications or anthropomorphic explanations.

Or how about when Jesus said, "5 Then he said to them, "Suppose one of you has a friend, and he goes to him at midnight and says, 'Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, 6 because a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have nothing to set before him.' 7 "Then the one inside answers, 'Don't bother me. The door is already locked, and my children are with me in bed. I can't get up and give you anything.' 8 I tell you, though he will not get up and give him the bread because he is his friend, yet because of the man's boldness he will get up and give him as much as he needs. 9 "So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. 11 "Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

 

[Skandelon]

I don't know how many individual posts you have on the subject, but I notice you seem to have started over 20 threads against Calvinism since the beginning of 2011.

And you look like Mr. Rogers, so what's your point? :love2:

Just joking with you...but the similarity is striking, you have to admit.

This is a soteriological discussion board and a topic that, because of my history with it, is close to my heart. If anyone doesn't wish to engage, don't. :wavey:

 

[David Lamb]

And you look like Mr. Rogers, so what's your point?

Just joking with you...but the similarity is striking, you have to admit.

This is a soteriological discussion board and a topic that, because of my history with it, is close to my heart. If anyone doesn't wish to engage, don't.

In reply to Reformed Baptist's post 6, you wrote (post 7) that he had written a thousand more posts than you on the subject (of calvinism). That was the context and the point of my reply to you.

I fully agree that no one is forced to participate in any particular discussion. I cannot think of any post of mine where I have suggested otherwise.

Regarding my similarity to "Mr Rogers", there must be thousands of people in the Englishg-speaking world with that name. I don't know which of them you mean, but I can't think of anyone known to me called Rogers who looks like me.

(I had to remove your two smileys, because when I tried to post this message with them in, I got an error message saying I had attempted to send a post with five images, and the limit is four. I don't understand that, 'cos it only had your two. Not suggesting that was your fault).

 

[Baptist4life]

Regarding my similarity to "Mr Rogers", there must be thousands of people in the Englishg-speaking world with that name. I don't know which of them you mean, but I can't think of anyone known to me called Rogers who looks like me.

.

It's not Mr. Rogers. It's Mr. DressUp.......he had a Canadian children's show years ago that my children watched all the time. You could be his twin!

 

[webdog]

:laugh: With my words heading your post, you still misquote me and miss my qualifier!:laugh:

You never disappoint!

Who said I was quoting you. I was paraphrasing "uncounted eons of eternity PRIOR to Creation". There is no such thing as an eon prior to creation, which time is a part of.

 

[Aaron]

Nothing. But did Satan's intent to become like God originate in the mind of God, or Satan? If Satan, then wasn't God informed by Satan's intent? If not, explain?

You're delving into things the Scriptures themselves say we have not seen. You're still thinking as a man.

Satan is a created being and had no intent "prior" to his creation. God knew it and purposed it "beforehand" though, and therefore could not have been informed by Satan's intent, but by the counsel of His own will.

That's what the Spirit says, and that's what I'll have to accept. I won't presume as you do, that simply because I can't reason it out in my finite mind that the doctrine makes God the source or originator of sin.

It means that God FOREKNEW their rebellion and used it to bring about redemption for the world. There is a HUGE difference in the concept of God foreknowing evil intents and using them for his own purposes and the concept of God predetermining men's evil intent so that it could not be otherwise.

So, in the beginning, God intended a world where sin would not enter in, and was unable to bring that to pass? That's not the testimony of the Scriptures.

The fact you are not willing or able to make that distinction only reflects that you really don't agree at all with Freeatlast's statement.

No, it means I know the Scriptures better than you do.

Dahmer's actions DO pose a problem...its called SIN!!! Which God combats and overcomes through the blood of Christ, but you would have us to believe that such Sin originate in the mind of God and that the cross was just some puppet drama to answer something God himself made.

The world was made to bring about the death of Christ. It was made by Him, and for Him.

Christ said greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. God is love, and there could be no better expression of that love than the Son laying down His life for His friends. There could be no better expression of that love than the Cross.

The Cross does take away the sins of the elect, that is true, but that is not why the Cross was made, as if God had no other way to answer sin and forgive the sinner. There was no other way to answer love.

The Cross is not about us. It is about Christ. Without the Cross, Christ would not have obtained a name that is above any other name, and all power and authority could not have been given Him. And unless we take up our crosses and follow Him, neither will we rule and reign with Him.

. . . the cross was just some puppet drama to answer something God himself made . . .

The Cross answers love, and love is not created. God is love.

A small view of God is one that insists He must play both sides of the chess board to ensure a win. A small view of God thinks in order for Him to really be all powerful he has to be the puppet master pulling the strings of the righteous and the unrighteous. A small view of God poses him as a little boy playing with army men in the dirt controlling both the good guys and the bad ones so as to ensure victory in the battle.

A biblical view of God is one of a romantic God who wants to be pursued and loved. One who relents when beseeched...One who gives to those who are persistent...One who grows angry at rebellion, and compassionate for the humble. The bible reveals a God who weeps with us in our suffering, and intervenes when we cry. He is depicted as a general in an army who rises up to concur are real enemy... A father who runs to embrace a wayward child...

So, you can call all those "small" or "anthropomorphic" views of God if you wish...but I'll stand with the biblical revelations regardless of how you label and dismiss them.

A small view of God is one that thinks His will can be thwarted, the effeminate rant above notwithstanding.

I guess the writer of Exodus 32 also had a very small view of God and "recreated Him into something like himself" when he wrote: 9 "I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation." 11 But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. "O LORD," he said, "why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: 'I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.' " 14 Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened. 15 Moses turned and went down the mountain with the two tablets of the Testimony in his hands. They were inscribed on both sides, front and back.

You really are shortsighted.

What compelled God to say anything at all to Moses? What better way to manifest the meekness He gave Moses? What better way to exalt Moses' office? God called Moses to that office, and now that He employs him in the execution of the duties of that office, you think that if not for Moses God would have wiped Israel off the map? God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and there were three thousand that He did not have mercy on that day despite Moses' intercession.

 

[Skandelon]

You're delving into things the Scriptures themselves say we have not seen. You're still thinking as a man.

You say that but then go on to speculate with the following comment AS A MAN...

Satan is a created being and had no intent "prior" to his creation. God knew it and purposed it "beforehand" though, and therefore could not have been informed by Satan's intent, but by the counsel of His own will.

You said God "knew it," but how did he "KNOW IT?" Did he foreknow what Satan would freely choose? OR did God know it because HE himself intended for Satan to have this intent? How did God come to KNOW IT?

That's what the Spirit says, and that's what I'll have to accept.

Where?

I won't presume as you do,

What did I presume? I am arguing against the presumption that some here have argued which is that because God foreknows something that he must have predetermined it to be. I'm only asking as to how God comes to know of the evil intent of Satan?

So, in the beginning, God intended a world where sin would not enter in, and was unable to bring that to pass? That's not the testimony of the Scriptures.

That is not what we believe. We believe that God intended a world where free creatures could freely choose to obey or disobey. Was he unable to bring that to pass?

No, it means I know the Scriptures better than you do.

:laugh: Your dramatic Rush Limbaughisk hubris really is funny...at least I presume it is an act cause certainly no one could seriously think of themselves so highly as you do without it being meant as humor, could they?

Christ said greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. God is love, and there could be no better expression of that love than the Son laying down His life for His friends. There could be no better expression of that love than the Cross.

I agree, but a cross in response to an actual enemy, not a divine puppet.

The Cross is not about us. It is about Christ.

Actually, its both.

Without the Cross, Christ would not have obtained a name that is above any other name, and all power and authority could not have been given Him. And unless we take up our crosses and follow Him, neither will we rule and reign with Him.

Agreed, but if one is being effectually made to take up his cross, why bother? Just skip the suffering and effectually make people who think the way you want them to think and love the way you want them to love.

A small view of God is one that thinks His will can be thwarted

Agreed, which is why we argue that creatures with free will was HIS intent.

The accusation that our view somehow thwarts His will falls under the fallacy of question begging because it presumes it wasn't God's will to create free beings, the very point up for debate.

the effeminate rant above notwithstanding.

Interesting that God's qualities encompass and perfectly reflect the best of both genders... like the mother hen who wishes to gather her baby chicks under her wings but they are unwilling. (Matt. 23:37)

You really are shortsighted.

Why do you contradict your own doctrine and insult his creatures who are only acting as God has decreed for us to act? You insult God's will, not mine, if indeed what you believe it true. Be consistent.

What compelled God to say anything at all to Moses? What better way to manifest the meekness He gave Moses? What better way to exalt Moses' office? God called Moses to that office, and now that He employs him in the execution of the duties of that office, you think that if not for Moses God would have wiped Israel off the map? God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and there were three thousand that He did not have mercy on that day despite Moses' intercession.

But the scripture doesn't provide this qualification. You do. You are speculating. Clearly the writer of scripture has no problem with the "uneducated" man reading this account and walking away believing in a God who may relent in response to the prayer of a righteous man. Good thing the learned intellectuals like Augustine and Calvin came along to straighten everything out. We all know God prefers the intellectual types anyway...

Why not allow scripture to speak for itself? Why do you insist on qualifying everything to fit your man-made systematized dogma?

 

[Aaron]

That is not what we believe. We believe that God intended a world where free creatures could freely choose to obey or disobey. Was he unable to bring that to pass?

Then you can't escape the conclusion that it was God's will that some men freely sin.

I say Adam freely sinned, according to God's will, and we died in Adam.

 

[Cypress]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skandelon View Post
That is not what we believe. We believe that God intended a world where free creatures could freely choose to obey or disobey. Was he unable to bring that to pass?
Then you can't escape the conclusion that it was God's will that some men freely sin.


Aaron, from Skans statement you can logically conclude that any who sin choose to do so freely, not that God intends for them to sin. :love2:

 

[Skandelon]

Then you can't escape the conclusion that it was God's will that some men freely sin.

God permissively decreeing the sin of man (meaning foreknowing but allowing it/or not hindering it) is probably different from what you mean when you say, "God's will that some men freely sin," or is it?

I say Adam freely sinned, according to God's will, and we died in Adam.

What do you mean by "freely?" And what do you mean by "according to God's will?"

And don't think I didn't notice all the questions and arguments you conveniently chose to ignore from my last post. Just answer this one for me:

You said God "knew it," but how did he "KNOW IT?" Did he foreknow what Satan would freely choose? OR did God know it because HE himself intended for Satan to have this intent? How did God come to KNOW IT?

 

[quantumfaith]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skandelon View Post
That is not what we believe. We believe that God intended a world where free creatures could freely choose to obey or disobey. Was he unable to bring that to pass?
Then you can't escape the conclusion that it was God's will that some men freely sin.


Aaron, from Skans statement you can logically conclude that any who sin choose to do so freely, not that God intends for them to sin. :love2:

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It's not Mr. Rogers. It's Mr. DressUp.......he had a Canadian children's show years ago that my children watched all the time. You could be his twin!

Yup, both middle aged men wearing glasses. LOL

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I have neither the time nor desire to find posts. If you want something addressed, state it plainly here or, at the very least, post a link.



Your implication is that God gives the evil their desires. We certainly do not say so. Did God cause Cain to kill Abel? No. Did Cain act on his own fallen desire? Yes.

Was the die cast? In one way yes, in one way no. Could Cain have done otherwise? I think so. But this in no way reflects on God's decrees--mostly because God does not give us access to the goings on behind Cain's killing of Abel as far as His decrees go.

He does, however, give that access to the life of Joseph--saying that his brothers did sin against him but that He (God) superintended that free and sinful action for good.



Though I don't fit the mold completely, I am an infralapsarian. And God does not merely know man's choices. In some way (a mysterious way) He has ordered all things. Like the writer of a movie script, He has determined the lines, the story-arc, etc. The Director, the Actors, etc. are free to play the assigned role according to their desires. But, their performance in no way changes the story or outcome of the movie.

For example: Tom Selleck was the original choice to play Indian Jones. Had Selleck played that role, rather than Harrison Ford, the movie would have been vastly different, but it would have told the same story. In other words, Selleck's "Indiana Jones" would not have found the Titanic rather than the lost Ark.

Speaking of Titanic, had an actor other than DiCaprio played "Jack," it would not have affected the ultimate sinking of the ship. Had Harry Dean Anderson (MacGyver) played "Jack" he wouldn't have been able to plug the hole in the ship with some chewing gum and avert the disaster. Why? Because the author of the movie had "decreed" the ultimate story and that story ends with the sinking of the ship and the death of "Jack."



You, again, imply disparity where none exists. You have left no room for "sin" in the equation. Dahmer, like us all, has been radically and devastatingly affected by sin. So, the "evil" that you want to find the singularity to does not come from God or (primarily) from man. It is the result of Man's sinful rebellion in the Garden and that rebellion has affected all mankind and has warped us into doing sinful things--some more sinful than others.

You seem to want to assign personality to Evil. Evil (or sin) is the opposite or antithesis of God and His will. So, when God is disobeyed--like Adam and Eve did in the Garden--evil (or sin) comes into the world. I'm afraid you'd have us believe in the little red devil and the little angle on our shoulders--vying for our loyalty.

Evil is not personal; evil (or, again, sin) is doing the opposite of God's will or being something in rebellion against God--something we are by our very nature.



It depends, I think, what you mean by "permissive decrees." From my reading of your posts, you want to make it that everything is covered by this elusive "permissive decree" and that God is reacting to all that is going on.

The Archangel

Quite Right :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Baptist4life]

Yup, both middle aged men wearing glasses. LOL

If you don't think they look alike, maybe you need glasses! :tongue3:

 

[Aaron]

God permissively decreeing the sin of man (meaning foreknowing but allowing it/or not hindering it) is probably different from what you mean when you say, "God's will that some men freely sin," or is it?

It doesn't matter. If God knew it before hand and chose not to prevent it, then He's just as "culpable," as you say, as if He ordained it.

What do you mean by "freely?"

That Adam was not in bondage to sin, had the power not to sin, and sinned.

And what do you mean by "according to God's will?"

That God willed for sin and death to enter His creation to demonstrate the power and glory of His Son.

And don't think I didn't notice all the questions and arguments you conveniently chose to ignore from my last post.

I just answer what I consider key statements.

Just answer this one for me:

You said God "knew it," but how did he "KNOW IT?" Did he foreknow what Satan would freely choose? OR did God know it because HE himself intended for Satan to have this intent? How did God come to KNOW IT?

Many things about God and the Gospel I cannot tell how or why. I just know it is.

But God knew it, and if He knew it before it was, then it is impossible that it could be otherwise. If He knew before hand He would find corruption in Satan, then it is impossible Satan could be uncorrupted. If He knew Adam would fall, then it is impossible that he would stand.

And so, before the foundation of the world, these things were created and were ordained by Christ, and for Him. It is impossible that it would be otherwise. The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

 

[Skandelon]

It doesn't matter. If God knew it before hand and chose not to prevent it, then He's just as "culpable," as you say, as if He ordained it.

Please define what you mean by 'ordained.' If by ordained you mean "caused/originated/predetermined" then you have just redefined the word foreknowledge to mean predetermination and thus negated the word scripture chose.

I knew before I was married and had kids that they would sin, but am I culpable for their sin because I didn't prevent their being created? Of course not. That is just one example of how one can know and permit something without being culpable for it. If indeed God did create free moral creatures (contra-causally free I mean), then divine culpability is not a problem. It is only a problem when one assumes such freewill isn't possible, as you do....which is begging the question.

That Adam was not in bondage to sin, had the power not to sin, and sinned.

Then what caused him to sin?

Many things about God and the Gospel I cannot tell how or why. I just know it is.

And there is your appeal to mystery. We do the same thing, but we do it BEFORE bringing reproach upon God by suggesting that God in fact does "predetermine/ordain/decree" evil. We appeal to mystery prior to suggesting that God "must" have determined this because he 'foreknew" that "prior." Because the word "prior" is linear and finite. We don't KNOW how God foreknows and creates space and time. We ONLY know what the bible reveals and it reveals that God doesn't even tempt men to sin yet your system of teaching suggests he not only causally determines the temptation, but that he ordains the intent of the tempter, the act of tempting and even the desire of the agent being tempted so as to predetermine their choice. All of this because of finite human logic that attempts to put God in a box and suggest what He can and cannot do because of infinite attributes our minds can't even begin to fathom. Why not just appeal to mystery a step sooner and remove all anti-biblical speculations that impugn God's holiness?

 

[Aaron]

Please define what you mean by 'ordained.' If by ordained you mean "caused/originated/predetermined" then you have just redefined the word foreknowledge to mean predetermination and thus negated the word scripture chose.

Scripture chose the word "predestinated."

I knew before I was married and had kids that they would sin, but am I culpable for their sin because I didn't prevent their being created?

There you go ahead making the image of the uncorruptible God into an image like unto corruptible man. You didn't know your children before they were begotten. You didn't and don't know their thoughts. You didn't create them.

But God did create them, and created them sinners, sold to sin. And that was before they had any thoughts or intents and were mere gleams in your eye. He created them as slaves to sin, not free. They could no sooner choose to follow Christ than they could choose to grow wings.

If indeed God did create free moral creatures (contra-causally free I mean), then divine culpability is not a problem. It is only a problem when one assumes such freewill isn't possible, as you do....which is begging the question.

That's a stipulation you dreamed up on your own. There is nothing in the Scriptures that comes even close to saying what you just said here.

Then what caused him to sin?

He was corrupted.

And there is your appeal to mystery. We do the same thing, but we do it BEFORE bringing reproach upon God . . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah . . .

Our appeal to mystery is only in things that the Scripture leaves mysterious. Your appeal to mystery is in trying to answer how your antiscriptural and outright denials of straightforward revelation are orthodox.

 

[Skandelon]

Scripture chose the word "predestinated."

It does in some cases, but it choses the words "foreknow" in others, but your system doesn't allow any differentiation between the two terms in relation to God.

There you go ahead making the image of the uncorruptible God into an image like unto corruptible man. You didn't know your children before they were begotten. You didn't and don't know their thoughts. You didn't create them.

Actually, like scripture, I'm using a metaphor comparing God to man, but to someone looking for a way to demean rather than objectively understand and rebut an argument, I can see how you came to this conclusion.

But God did create them, and created them sinners, sold to sin.

No, he created men in his own image and declared all he created to be "good." Mankind chose to sin by their own free volition...the free volition God created them to have so that they could independently deliberate, reason and choose. Thus, they are held to account for those choices.

He {Adam} was corrupted.

Calvin himself disagrees with you on this point as does most of Christendom, so I'll not even attempt to address this blatantly non-orthadox statement, but let it stand as it is....wrong. Adam was created in the image of God and was declared "good."

Who or what "corrupted" him?

Our appeal to mystery is only in things that the Scripture leaves mysterious.

Then you have no reason to declare such things as "because God foreknew all things before creating all things then he must have predetermined it to be" because that is a concept never taught in scripture. It is something created out of finite reasoning.