I agree with you insofar as the Reformed using "double speak".
Christ died for everybody. They redefine "whole world" as well.
BUT I was very clear that I was using YOUR definition of "control" as a verb, not a Reformed position.
We also have to recognize that the Reformed redefines "foreknown" to mean "decreed", orthwise we get into the problem between Calvinists and Arminians (decree vs ordain). But that's another discussion for when the OP has worked out its kinks.
Personally, I do not view God as making all thinks work for the good - or controlling events - as God controlling sin. But that was the definition you chose in the OP.
If you wanted a more neauanced form of that definition when applied to sin then you should have used one in your argument.
For example, you could have pointed out that you are strictly applying that definition to causing sin rather than events that are produced from, or create an environment form, sin.
You assumed I would take a Reformed stance to that definition, but I didn't. Quite the opposite - I wanted you to remove a reactionary assumption from your argument.
To clarify, I was strictly abiding by your definition as provided in the OP (the definition you provided that included events). My intent was not to argue with you (as I believe we agree) but to strengthen your argument because it was not fully correct as presented in the original post.
