why is it ?

Why? How could it logically be any different if what you are saying is true?</font>[/QUOTE]Because the Bible doesn't allow it. You're still not dealing with any of those passages that I mentioned. The Bible declares that God sent the Babylonians to destroy Judah. Do you think they knew that they were doing God's will? Of course not - Daniel proves that. Read Habakkuk too - it shows God's plan to bring Babylon in to destroy Judah, and then to punish Babylon for their evil in destroying Judah. I simply cannot deny what the Bible says about God just because it doesn't fit with my image of what God should do or be.

Of course not! That's because God isn't a puppeteer, controlling every thought and want and action. Instead, if he controlled everything as you have said, there could be no other conclusion. </font>[/QUOTE]Let me try again. You said:

"Sure, he's God and can do all this if he wants and we can only deal with it the way we are predetermined to, but ultimately it makes scripture, our relationship with him, all of Christianity, and even life itself into nothing more than a prolonged, inescapable, cruel joke."

But Paul's conclusion is that, if God did rule His creation down to that level of detail, creating an unrighteous being expressly for the purpose of punishing that creature for its unrighteousness, then He would be perfectly just and righteous in doing so. Paul does not say that God would be a puppeteer in this case, and he does not say that life would be just a joke in this case. He says that, if this were the case, there would be no valid objection that we could offer. Yet you still object. Is that clearer?

 

I readily admit there are a few such instances in scripture. However, this does not do anything to prove that God controls everything in everybody to the level you are arguing for.

I am not disagreeing with this conclusion. He would be perfectly just in doing so - for he can do whatever he wants, and by definition of who he is, anything he does is righteous. But he would still be a puppeteer, and nothing you have said proves otherwise.

Let me try again with a point you seem to be avoiding: you are saying that if we sin, it was because it was inescapable. However, scripture says that when we are tempted to sin, an escape is provided. So which is it?

 

But if He ever does that to anybody then your "puppeteer" objections are invalid. If He can do it to the Babylonians then He could do it to you, too, and you would have no basis for objecting.

I'm not avoiding it - maybe I haven't been plain enough, though, so here's an attempt.

From an eternal perspective (where God rules) all that will happen has been determined infallibly and will certainly come to pass. From a temporal perspective (where we live) there is always a way of escape provided for the believer from any temptation. Scripture teaches both - how could I deny either?

 

I am not saying it is not possible. I'm saying that if it's true, we are all puppets. I'm also saying that if I "object", I have the perfect basis for objecting - because God is making me do it. See? You still are talking like it's up to me how I deal with it.

Because "escapable" and "inescapable" are by definition mutually exclusive. So obviously your understanding is wrong whether sin is truly escapable or not. Also, because "temporal" becomes a meaningless illusion, as I've explained previously.

Let me put it yet another way: Scriptures tell me not to steal. One day I am tempted to steal. What should I do?

 

It is Paul who says that you have no basis for objecting, not me. Either Paul is correct or you are. I've got to go with Paul.

Because "escapable" and "inescapable" are by definition mutually exclusive. So obviously your understanding is wrong whether sin is truly escapable or not. Also, because "temporal" becomes a meaningless illusion, as I've explained previously.</font>[/QUOTE]Or perhaps your understanding is wrong. Or maybe we're both wrong.

"Infinite" and "finite" are by definition mutually exclusive, and yet infinite God became finite man. Scripture relates many such paradoxes. We must never reject what the Bible claims on the basis of what our understanding allows, and yet this is exactly what you continue to do.

You should not steal.

 

But earlier you said that we do nothing without God predetermining and causing it. God himself is the cause of my objection if you are correct. So it's NOT me or Paul, it's YOU or Paul.

Don't you see what you are saying? How do you think I continue to "do" it, if I can "do" nothing without God predetermining and causing it?

You should not steal.</font>[/QUOTE]Why not?

How can I avoid it?

 

Paul says that God is the One "who works all things according to the counsel of his will". Do you believe that or not?

 

Ah, so now Calvinists want "all" to means "all", but not in 2 Pet 3:9, 1 Tim 2:4, etc.

Yes, I believe it - just not to the level of micromanaging and microcontrolling every thought and choice and want in our head - for then we'd be puppets, which you seem to not like very much.

Why shouldn't I steal?

How can I avoid it?

Alas, the puppeteer has determined that I should go to bed now. I'd like to stay and chat, but I have no choice.

 

Ah, so now Calvinists want "all" to means "all", but not in 2 Pet 3:9, 1 Tim 2:4, etc. </font>[/QUOTE]We prefer to let the context determine the meaning.

So you do believe it but you don't believe it. I see.

Because God commanded you to not steal.

You will do whatever you want to do most. I suppose you need someone to fix your desires in order to stop stealing.

It's a new day, so here's a new question. Can a puppet (or a robot - even a really complicated robot) have a relationship with its creator?

 

If that's what you think I'm saying, then no, you don't see.

Because God commanded you to not steal.
</font>[/QUOTE]But if I do steal, it was because God made me, right? He commanded me to not do something that was impossible for me not to do? If God predestines me to steal, then I am doing God's will by stealing! You are making God "double-minded".

Sure. A creator who knows everything should have no problem with designing those specs.

 

I saw you say that you believed it and then try to explain that it doesn't mean what it says.

I've already answered this, but you continue to disregard the answer. He has decreed everything that comes to pass, yet He has done so in such a way that His creatures do exactly what they want to do, and thus are held accountable for it. This is historically orthodox Christian belief.

"God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree."

We maintain that you are a second cause, and it is up to you to accept or reject this doctrine (or to steal or to not steal). But if you are going to argue against it you should understand it. You need to address the whole argument, instead of addressing only half of it.

Sure. A creator who knows everything should have no problem with designing those specs. </font>[/QUOTE]If what has been created can have a relationship with its creator then it is not a robot or a puppet. It is something else, a different kind of creation. Assigning new meanings to words does not help your argument.

 

Not exactly. The explanation was to show how far he exercises his control of all.

I haven't disregarded it, I've simply shown the logical absurdity of it.

"what they want to do" - how do they get this "want"?

So is the belief that we can actually choose, for real, what we do.

I can't believe you just said that.

Apparently you don't watch Star Trek.

 

So is the belief that we can actually choose, for real, what we do. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, since that is actually a major part of what we believe, as proven by the quote I provided, I agree completely.

I can't believe you just said that.</font>[/QUOTE]I can't believe it took me this long to see that you are responding without reading. I get it now. Sorry for wasting your time.

 

If what you are saying is true, God wanted and made me come to this thread to tell you that you are wrong. The puppeteer must find humor in that, folding logic backwards onto itself and being generally silly.

 

What part do you think I'm not addressing?

 

What part do you think I'm not addressing? </font>[/QUOTE]"yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established"

Your continued use of your puppet strawman shows that either you do not comprehend the Calvinist position, or you do understand it but you choose to not deal with it honestly.

If what I am saying is true you are responsible for your own actions, which were decreed by God from eternity past. There are two parts to what we believe.

1) God has decreed all things that come to pass.

2) God does this in such a way that He is not the author if sin, and He does not force anyone to act against his will.

You show your misunderstanding of what we believe every time you say something like "so is the belief that we can actually choose, for real, what we do", as if Calvinists didn't believe that. Why in the world would you think that we don't believe that, especially after I've spelled out several times both sides of what we actually believe? Calvinists believe that everyone always chooses what they do. Always.

 

I do understand it. I'm saying it doesn't logically work the way you want it to, and that logically it does make God the author of sin. Simply saying it doesn't, doesn't deal with or explain it. You can't logically say that God isn't the author of sin in one breath and then say that when we sin it was because God caused it in the second breath. You have been arguing that it's all of God, and that nothing we do can be done without him being the author and cause of it.

Yes, I've already agreed about the "responsible" aspect. God can shift the responsibility of what he causes on to us and there's nothing we can do about it.

Then God decrees sin. Then God decrees contradiction. Then God decrees our very wills and wants themselves.

How can he author sin without being the author of sin?

Of course, because he decrees our wills in the first place! Even if we act according to "our own" wills and wants, it is still an illusion for we were determined to have no other will than what he determined. This "second cause" is bogus, for the second cause is entirely derived and determined by the first.

I don't misunderstand, but maybe I didn't say it in a way that let you understand me. By "actually choose, for real", I mean a choice that is ours independent of what has been predetermined. A choice that originates from us, not from God's predetermination.

Yes. I know. Really, I do. My point is it's not really a choice if there was absolutely no possibility of choosing differently. We choose what we do because God made us choose that way - i.e. the choice was made for us before we even got here, and we just ride out the plotted course, given an illusion that we really get to "choose" things.

 

Yes. I know. Really, I do. My point is it's not really a choice if there was absolutely no possibility of choosing differently. We choose what we do because God made us choose that way - i.e. the choice was made for us before we even got here, and we just ride out the plotted course, given an illusion that we really get to "choose" things. </font>[/QUOTE]We do believe that there was a possibility of choosing differently. Did you catch the line about "contingencies" in the quote I provided? This is just more proof that you are not hearing everything that we are saying.

In summary, I still maintain what I said at the beginning. The Bible affirms that God works all things according to the counsel of His will, and that we choose and are held accountable for our choices. You say that "all things" cannot mean every single thing, because it is not logical. In other words, your understanding is driving your interpretation, in spite of concrete examples I provided that show that this is consistent with how God has acted in specific cases. If in any case God has acted in this way then you have no basis for rejecting the idea that He always acts this way, since the same logic you use to deny the generality would also rule out any of these special cases.

We say that the Bible means what it says, and that the context of Ephesians 1 makes it clear that Paul is not talking about "a lot of things" or "most things", but "every single thing". To quote R. C. Sproul, "there are no maverick molecules". We maintain that any apparent logical inconsistencies are due to our lack of understanding, and we dare not deny what Scripture says or try to explain it away because it doesn't fit our understanding. God's revelation always overrules our understanding.

Before you say it - yes, it is just as wrong for Calvinists to do the same thing with Scripture.

 

I am hearing. I am hearing contradictory statements. How can there be a possibility of choosing differently, if every choice has been predetermined?

 

This just illustrates my point. You are willing to deny what the Bible teaches because you cannot make it fit logically. I've already said that this truth is beyond me, but that is no reason to deny what the Bible states. If there is a deficiency then it is in me and my understanding, not in Scripture.