There is no predestination unto salvation in the Bible

[Mark Quayle]

Mark, you are what I call the kinder Calvinist. There are two kinds of people that result from believing Calvinism. You are the kind one.

What I’ve observed happening after a person is believing Calvinism for a time is as follows. One type we needn’t discuss. The other is the kind version but to maintain their position they have to jettison their mind. That is they must embrace what is essentially nonsense. You say there’s choice but no free will or free choice. These are mutually exclusive. You say Gods not responsible for evil done but yet responsible for the cause. Those are mutually exclusive. You give God the fault for causing sin to be and say He is good. These are mutually exclusive. This is very typical of calvinists. To maintain your eternal security, you are prepared to surrender real understanding and have to close your mind to what words mean.

One day you will stand before Him and have to give a account for why you credited Him with causing sin and evil and taught this to others. You will be unable to dance around the matter by redefining words or repeating mutually exclusive points. I know what your answer will be. And I would that you repent before that day for your sake. You will be saved from Hell, but not from the judgement for the matters whose responsibility you laid on God. He will see it as you accusing Him of evil. Because that is what Calvinism does.

You can't see why Navair2 sounded genuinely puzzled why you would consider him condescending? Remember, that like us all, you will have to give account for every word. Remember, that like us all, you too will be measured by your own standard.

I DON'T:

1. I don't give God the blame for anything, causing that sin be, indeed, for causing the circumstances in which a person CHOOSES to sin according to their own corrupt will, is not blaming him. "Blame" is the word you put to the simple logic of attributing 'cause'. I don't 'give God the fault' for causing sin. I give him the credit for doing what it takes to make a people for himself.

2. I don't embrace nonsense. It is you who denies the logic of cause-and-effect, and grants God-like power of integrity of choice to those at enmity with God. It is you who denies choices are caused, in the plain face of being caused to say so. You CHOSE to say so. Do you deny then, that you have to credit your choice to random chance? Or to what —your own magnificent virtue and intelligence, better and less nonsensical than those who believe as I do?

3. I don't jettison my mind (your words are so kind!). I find the logic of Calvinism delightful and God-honoring. It is YOU who find it necessary to attribute humanity with what only God possesses —absolute spontaneity, sovereignty. Only First Cause is uncaused. It is YOU who denies that the work of grace, the whole of the Gospel, is the work of God alone.

4. I don't believe in mutually exclusive things. It is you, who must deny the fact of God alone being absolutely free and unfettered of all outside causes, in order to call humans free-willed. Those are mutually exclusive. How is choice mutually exclusive from lack of FREE will? For that matter, do you not admit to being a slave to Christ? In him we are free, not in our will. Our will belongs to him. You are not autonomous.

5. I don't accuse God of evil. Your 'logical' extensions of what Calvinism teaches, are NOT what Calvinism teaches. You use a certain logic, no doubt, but it is faulty, making false assumptions.

I bet you would have a problem with "The command does not imply the ability to obey the command." Yet right there in Romans 8, we have described for us, the lost, who are unable to submit to God's law. Yet the law has commanded them all the same. If they will not submit and indeed are unable to submit to God's law, how is their will free?

What will you do on that day, —when God asks you what Romans 8:5-8 is about? or Romans 9:11-23 is about? —when God asks you why you abandoned his word in favor of self-determination?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You can't see why Navair2 sounded genuinely puzzled why you would consider him condescending?

He wasn’t genuinely puzzled. He was defending himself and not at all sorry he gave in to his pride. He didn’t repent of his act, only said he was sorry I had unpleasant feelings which I didn’t have so he needn’t be sorry as it didn’t happen.

If he were genuinely concerned for me as he claimed, he would have done as Jesus commanded and prayed secretly for me telling no one. As he paraded praying for all to see like a pharisee, it wasn’t sorry. Puzzled I can believe as he is deceived about his motives among other matters.

Remember, that like us all, you will have to give account for every word. Remember, that like us all, you too will be measured by your own standard.

Already do so frequently.
I asked God to search me and judge me.

I DON'T:

1. I don't give God the blame for anything, causing that sin be, indeed, for causing the circumstances in which a person CHOOSES to sin according to their own corrupt will, is not blaming him. "Blame" is the word you put to the simple logic of attributing 'cause'. I don't 'give God the fault' for causing sin. I give him the credit for doing what it takes to make a people for himself.

2. I don't embrace nonsense. It is you who denies the logic of cause-and-effect, and grants God-like power of integrity of choice to those at enmity with God. It is you who denies choices are caused, in the plain face of being caused to say so. You CHOSE to say so. Do you deny then, that you have to credit your choice to random chance? Or to what —your own magnificent virtue and intelligence, better and less nonsensical than those who believe as I do?

3. I don't jettison my mind (your words are so kind!). I find the logic of Calvinism delightful and God-honoring. It is YOU who find it necessary to attribute humanity with what only God possesses —absolute spontaneity, sovereignty. Only First Cause is uncaused. It is YOU who denies that the work of grace, the whole of the Gospel, is the work of God alone.

4. I don't believe in mutually exclusive things. It is you, who must deny the fact of God alone being absolutely free and unfettered of all outside causes, in order to call humans free-willed. Those are mutually exclusive. How is choice mutually exclusive from lack of FREE will? For that matter, do you not admit to being a slave to Christ? In him we are free, not in our will. Our will belongs to him. You are not autonomous.

5. I don't accuse God of evil. Your 'logical' extensions of what Calvinism teaches, are NOT what Calvinism teaches. You use a certain logic, no doubt, but it is faulty, making false assumptions.

This we have discussed before.

I bet you would have a problem with "The command does not imply the ability to obey the command." Yet right there in Romans 8, we have described for us, the lost, who are unable to submit to God's law. Yet the law has commanded them all the same. If they will not submit and indeed are unable to submit to God's law, how is their will free?

Yet God himself told the Israelites that the law He was giving them was not too difficult for them. Let me ask you, which law is too difficult for you to keep? I find it easy to avoid adultery and murder. I honored my parents. I don’t steal from my neighbor and would tell the truth in a court of law. So which law is too difficult for you?

The chapter in Romans three describes sinners who made themselves that way. We, as Christians, don’t believe the immoral people are born that way. We believe they choose it and it says that God eventually gave them up to their choice. So it doesn’t support that we cannot or unable to obey. When the rich young ruler told Jesus he’d kept the law, Jesus didn’t correct him.

What will you do on that day, —when God asks you what Romans 8:5-8 is about? or Romans 9:11-23 is about? —when God asks you why you abandoned his word in favor of self-determination?

The Bible says we will be judged for the words and deeds. Since, we, not God, carry the weight of those choices, they were all self determined. Otherwise the one determining those choices would instead stand there. My goal is to hear, “well done good and faithful servant.”

To clarify for those who don’t read my stuff, I am redeemed by the blood of Jesus, have repented and had my sins forgiven and walk with him endeavoring to obey Him. I don’t do my own idea of works. I try to do what he tells me to do, good works these are called. My own ideas are dead works.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yet God himself told the Israelites that the law He was giving them was not too difficult for them. Let me ask you, which law is too difficult for you to keep? I find it easy to avoid adultery and murder. I honored my parents. I don’t steal from my neighbor and would tell the truth in a court of law. So which law is too difficult for you?

The chapter in Romans three describes sinners who made themselves that way. We, as Christians, don’t believe the immoral people are born that way. We believe they choose it and it says that God eventually gave them up to their choice. So it doesn’t support that we cannot or unable to obey. When the rich young ruler told Jesus he’d kept the law, Jesus didn’t correct him.

No, not too difficult. Too difficult is not the point —it is a question of WILL. As Romans 8 says, the heart of flesh cannot, not because it is too difficult, but it will not.

Why should Jesus have corrected him even if he is wrong? Has he corrected you? Your logic runs slack. The whole conversation with the rich young ruler was rhetorical, not technical.

The Bible says we will be judged for the words and deeds. Since, we, not God, carry the weight of those choices, they were all self determined. Otherwise the one determining those choices would instead stand there. My goal is to hear, “well done good and faithful servant.”

If you think God doesn't carry the weight of sin, think again. It is the ONLY thing that actually harms him. No wonder you think we are the hinge pin of the Gospel.

For the redeemed, the judgement has to do with rewards, not condemnation. But if your hope is all about rewards, you need to, well, let's just say you need to study more. Your hope should be to see God as he is, to be WITH Christ.

To clarify for those who don’t read my stuff, I am redeemed by the blood of Jesus, have repented and had my sins forgiven and walk with him endeavoring to obey Him. I don’t do my own idea of works. I try to do what he tells me to do, good works these are called. My own ideas are dead works.

Yet, here you are expounding your own ideas of works.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Predestination is never, ever, ever, that of lost man unto salvation.
Predestination is always that of a saved man unto a glorified Christ's-image-bearing resurrection body.
That's what you get if you let the scriptures speak for themselves, in context, and with defining cross-references, without looking at them through any theologically-coloured glasses.

This study proves, diligently, and scripturally, the following:

1. No verse ever clearly specifies when predestination (not election) occurs
2. There is no predestination unto salvation in the Bible
3. Predestination is always unto adoption (not salvation)
4. Adoption is the redemption of the body (not the soul)
5. Adoption occurs at the resurrection
6. Adoption is a blessing accompanying salvation but not salvation itself

This is what happens when you listen to someone else's teachings without studying the topic for yourself. As we will see below there is a past, present and future aspect to adoption just the same as there is a past, present and future aspect to salvation and eternal life.

Galatians 3:23-4:7 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. 4:1 Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, 2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. 3 So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

We cannot separate Chapter 4:1-7 from its context. Who are the children that are like slaves? According to 3:23-24 it is those who "were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed." The Law is the guardian and the manager that the under age child is under. But notice what Paul says next: "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." We are no longer under age children, now that we are not under the law, but under faith! It has already happened that we have been placed as sons.

Paul goes on in chapter 4 to speak of our being children (as in under guardians and managers) in the past tense! "So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world." But that is past, for when the time came God sent His Son to redeem those under the Law that we might receive the adoption as sons. You see, Paul speaks of being under age children in the past tense.

Then he speaks in the present tense: "Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God." We are (present tense) sons and heirs - we were (past tense) children under the Law.

He also uses the exact same language of redemption (which is a present reality) as for adoption. We need to be consistent in interpretation. He could not be more clear that we are no longer under age children but have full standing as sons.

This passage again, must be stretched and twisted to make it a "future" text. Such an interpretation can come from putting an undue emphasis on the English translation of the Greek subjunctive (we might receive). However, such an interpretation is unwarranted. The Greek subjunctive with the hina clause simply denotes purpose. God sent forth his Son with the purpose of our adoption. Notice that Paul uses the same language for our redemption which is also a present reality (1 Peter 1:17-19). The language is the same, so there is no contextual reason to see this as future.

Ephesians 1:5-6 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

There's not much to say on this text for it simply tells us of yet another time aspect of our adoption - which is in the eternal counsel of God.

Adoption has a three-fold time-relationship. (1) In the councils of God it was an act in eternity past (Eph. 1:5). Before He ever began with the Hebrew race, yes, before creation, He predestinated us to this position. "And these all, having had witness borne to them through their faith, received not the promise. God having provided some better thing concerning us, that apart from us they should be made perfect" (Heb. 11:39, 40). (2) In personal experience it becomes true of the believer at the time of his accepting Jesus Christ (Gal 3:26, huiou theou, "sons of God," not "children of God," as in the A.V.)...(3) But the full realization of sonship awaits the coming of Christ. It is at that time that the adoption will be fully consummated (Rom. 8:23). Then our bodies will be delivered from corruption and mortality and be made like unto His own glorious body (Phil. 3:20, 21)

hope this helps !!!

 

[Mark Quayle]

undue emphasis on the English translation of the Greek subjunctive (we might receive). However, such an interpretation is unwarranted. The Greek subjunctive with the hina clause simply denotes purpose. God sent forth his Son with the purpose of our adoption.

To add to the fun, to go with "might" the way some do, implies chance, as though to set in place a structure where chance rules the outcome. Not only does that not sound like God, but it is logically self-contradictory. This is not the only place in scripture where this "might" shows up, and is misread.

Is that a striper? How many fellas got their picture taken with it?

 

[Mark Quayle]

He wasn’t genuinely puzzled. He was defending himself and not at all sorry he gave in to his pride. He didn’t repent of his act, only said he was sorry I had unpleasant feelings which I didn’t have so he needn’t be sorry as it didn’t happen.

If he were genuinely concerned for me as he claimed, he would have done as Jesus commanded and prayed secretly for me telling no one. As he paraded praying for all to see like a pharisee, it wasn’t sorry. Puzzled I can believe as he is deceived about his motives among other matters.
Already do so frequently.
I asked God to search me and judge me.
This we have discussed before.
Yet God himself told the Israelites that the law He was giving them was not too difficult for them. Let me ask you, which law is too difficult for you to keep? I find it easy to avoid adultery and murder. I honored my parents. I don’t steal from my neighbor and would tell the truth in a court of law. So which law is too difficult for you?

The chapter in Romans three describes sinners who made themselves that way. We, as Christians, don’t believe the immoral people are born that way. We believe they choose it and it says that God eventually gave them up to their choice. So it doesn’t support that we cannot or unable to obey. When the rich young ruler told Jesus he’d kept the law, Jesus didn’t correct him.

The Bible says we will be judged for the words and deeds. Since, we, not God, carry the weight of those choices, they were all self determined. Otherwise the one determining those choices would instead stand there. My goal is to hear, “well done good and faithful servant.”

To clarify for those who don’t read my stuff, I am redeemed by the blood of Jesus, have repented and had my sins forgiven and walk with him endeavoring to obey Him. I don’t do my own idea of works. I try to do what he tells me to do, good works these are called. My own ideas are dead works.

It occurs to me, maybe you would feel better about my view if I only said that God causes that sin be, in general, and in every instance —as opposed to saying he causes sin or sins. Still, I find it necessary to say this: that he causes every choice, though we do indeed choose, and that, according to our own wills.

I do completely agree that he does not himself sin, nor does he tempt anyone. But if you take him causing that sin be, to mean that he does tempt, then I am sorry, but that is not what it means. I hope you can find it on your mind, keeping an eye out for it, as you read through scripture, and not just to prove it false, but to see what it means.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

To add to the fun, to go with "might" the way some do, implies chance, as though to set in place a structure where chance rules the outcome. Not only does that not sound like God, but it is logically self-contradictory. This is not the only place in scripture where this "might" shows up, and is misread.

Is that a striper? How many fellas got their picture taken with it?

It’s a 51 lb salmon

 

[Mark Quayle]

It’s a 51 lb salmon

Yeah, the tail is wrong for a striper. Lol, my bad. Never had any experience with a salmon anywhere near that size.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It occurs to me, maybe you would feel better about my view if I only said that God causes that sin be, in general, and in every instance —as opposed to saying he causes sin or sins. Still, I find it necessary to say this: that he causes every choice, though we do indeed choose, and that, according to our own wills.

I do completely agree that he does not himself sin, nor does he tempt anyone. But if you take him causing that sin be, to mean that he does tempt, then I am sorry, but that is not what it means. I hope you can find it on your mind, keeping an eye out for it, as you read through scripture, and not just to prove it false, but to see what it means.

I actually do know what these scriptures mean and none of them attribute to God anything having the slightest smell of sin. He is holy and that means he doesn’t cause that sin be.

I also know the source of accusing God of sin/evil/wrong/etc. He does that from Genesis to the NT. I’m not siding with that one. I’m hating the garnet even spotted by the accusation of wrong.

The Bible does not support your position. You keep asking me to find you scriptures that say your position is wrong as if the Bible is supposed to list the wrong thinking men come up with for all future generations. It tells the truth for those who wish it. It doesn’t point all errors of all time.

It pains me when God is accused of any kind of evil because it’s not true and He is so far away from evil as to be a shock that anyone would allow themselves to hang sin on him and say they are his child at the same time.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No, not too difficult. Too difficult is not the point —it is a question of WILL. As Romans 8 says, the heart of flesh cannot, not because it is too difficult, but it will not.

You are playing with words. God was saying the law he was giving them that was was not too difficult for them to will to do and to do. So if you perfer, the law was not too difficlt to will to follow.

Why should Jesus have corrected him even if he is wrong? Has he corrected you? Your logic runs slack. The whole conversation with the rich young ruler was rhetorical, not technical.

Jesus corrects people when they are wrong, that is, those who love the truth. So yes, he has corrected me many times. My logic is much better than yours as you change the Bible to suit your personal choice. The conversation above was real, not rhetorical nor techical. The man's eternity hung in the balance based on his choice.

If you think God doesn't carry the weight of sin, think again. It is the ONLY thing that actually harms him. No wonder you think we are the hinge pin of the Gospel.

I hate to tell you this but sin does not harm God. Sorry but He is much bigger than you are thinking if you think your sin is so powerful that it actually does him harm. WOW!

For the redeemed, the judgement has to do with rewards, not condemnation. But if your hope is all about rewards, you need to, well, let's just say you need to study more. Your hope should be to see God as he is, to be WITH Christ.

Yet, here you are expounding your own ideas of works.

No, actually I am going by the words of Jesus. Those who do not want to be doing the works that please Him find ways to convince themselves that JEsus does not want us to work for rewards even though he constantly talked about rewards. I bet you do not know what those rewards are.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Well, here's another opinion (All Piper's stuff on Ephesians in Look at the Book is good).

 

[Mark Quayle]

I also know the source of accusing God of sin/evil/wrong/etc. He does that from Genesis to the NT. I’m not siding with that one. I’m hating the garnet even spotted by the accusation of wrong.

I'm not accusing God of sin/evil/wrong/etc. But somehow this notion rises up in some people, at the mere mention of God causing all things whatsoever comes to pass.

The Bible does not support your position. You keep asking me to find you scriptures that say your position is wrong as if the Bible is supposed to list the wrong thinking men come up with for all future generations. It tells the truth for those who wish it. It doesn’t point all errors of all time.

I'm asking you to show me where God causing that sin be is the same as God sinning, or tempting. It is not. You also have failed to point out how the simple logic of cause-and-effect is not pervasive and does not apply concerning God causing sin. I can easily enough see, that if you don't attribute God with the credit for causing a person to turn to him who was at enmity with him, you also won't allow that God causes that sin be. There are several things that are both Biblical and logical, that you have ignored, concerning which you have not responded to me. Your blanket of self-determination is see-through. Almost like the emperor's clothes.

It pains me when God is accused of any kind of evil because it’s not true and He is so far away from evil as to be a shock that anyone would allow themselves to hang sin on him and say they are his child at the same time.

Then stop accusing him. I'm not accusing him of anything! "Hang sin on him"?? —Nice vague way of saying without saying.

You're not the only one that amazes me, though I should say I will be measured by my own standard— most of Christendom thinks like you do, that attributing God with a plan and creating according to that plan, and bringing that plan to fruition in this temporal envelope —this life that includes sin against the very Creator— somehow the fact that he not only knew, but planned it, and created it according to that plan somehow to you does not mean CAUSED!!!

 

[Mark Quayle]

You are playing with words. God was saying the law he was giving them that was was not too difficult for them to will to do and to do. So if you perfer, the law was not too difficlt to will to follow.

"...to will and to do." Philippians 2:13: "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

Jesus corrects people when they are wrong, that is, those who love the truth. So yes, he has corrected my many times. My logic is much better than yours as you change the Bible to suit your personal choice. The conversation above was not real, not rhetorical nor techical. The man's eternity hung in the balance based on his choice.

I expect you mean, the conversation was real. And I did not say otherwise. But how do you suppose rhetorical and real are mutually exclusive. Apparently you think if Christ speaks rhetorically he is not honest?

So God has endowed you with wisdom beyond that of Calvinists. Or do you think you got it by your free will?

And here you show the man's eternity hinging on his mere decision, and not on God's. So people decide according to information given to them. I can't remember —how is that not causation?

I hate to tell you this but sin does not harm God. Sorry but He is much bigger than you are thinking if you think your sin is so powerful that it actually does him harm. WOW!

Then perhaps you can explain the "bruised heel".

Remember what I said before: that you have a weak god, who created an out-of-control situation that he had not anticipated in creating, who must depend on and wait for autonomous free agents to decide on whatever chances to come before them to decide, without impingement by his will —indeed, without being caused by all the aggregate of all influences and circumstances, including personality, desire, habits etc. Your thinking elevates man to God's level, or rather, brings God down to our level, quite contrary to Scripture and good reason. Your unfettered free will is a self-deterministic fantasy.

No, actually I am going by the words of Jesus. Those who do not want to be doing the works that please Him find ways to convince themselves that JEsus does not want us to work for rewards even though he constantly talked about rewards. I bet you do not know what those rewards are.

Then YOU argue with @doubtingmerle (?) who asks for a final answer on what is required to get to Heaven, because Jesus' answer to the rich young ruler was not complete, (or was it?), and Merle hears many answers from others, some contradictory, some much more comprehensive, some completely different. I can hardly wait to hear your tangled response to him.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

"...to will and to do." Philippians 2:13: "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

Does this describe every Christian every day everywhere?
If not, why not?

I expect you mean, the conversation was real. And I did not say otherwise. But how do you suppose rhetorical and real are mutually exclusive. Apparently you think if Christ speaks rhetorically he is not honest?

If he didn’t really mean that this young man’s eternity didn’t really hang in his selling all he has and following him, what did it hinge upon? Eternity, btw, is not a rhetorical place.

So God has endowed you with wisdom beyond that of Calvinists. Or do you think you got it by your free will?

I never claimed that.

And here you show the man's eternity hinging on his mere decision, and not on God's.

Yea, it always hangs upon our decision at some point.

So people decide according to information given to them. I can't remember —how is that not causation?

Information is not the deciding point.

Then perhaps you can explain the "bruised heel".

Remember what I said before: that you have a weak god, who created an out-of-control situation that he had not anticipated in creating, who must depend on and wait for autonomous free agents to decide on whatever chances to come before them to decide, without impingement by his will —indeed, without being caused by all the aggregate of all influences and circumstances, including personality, desire, habits etc. Your thinking elevates man to God's level, or rather, brings God down to our level, quite contrary to Scripture and good reason. Your unfettered free will is a self-deterministic fantasy.

You nothing of which you speak.

Then YOU argue with @doubtingmerle (?) who asks for a final answer on what is required to get to Heaven, because Jesus' answer to the rich young ruler was not complete, (or was it?), and Merle hears many answers from others, some contradictory, some much more comprehensive, some completely different. I can hardly wait to hear your tangled response to him.

The final arrival is preceded by many steps, some of which are individual which is why see Jesus giving different answers to different people. Some answers were the opposite of others. The final door is repentance, forgiveness and surrender. But we get there by different routes. This we see in the NT as well as real life.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I'm not accusing God of sin/evil/wrong/etc. But somehow this notion rises up in some people, at the mere mention of God causing all things whatsoever comes to pass.

I'm asking you to show me where God causing that sin be is the same as God sinning, or tempting. It is not. You also have failed to point out how the simple logic of cause-and-effect is not pervasive and does not apply concerning God causing sin. I can easily enough see, that if you don't attribute God with the credit for causing a person to turn to him who was at enmity with him, you also won't allow that God causes that sin be. There are several things that are both Biblical and logical, that you have ignored, concerning which you have not responded to me. Your blanket of self-determination is see-through. Almost like the emperor's clothes.



Then stop accusing him. I'm not accusing him of anything! "Hang sin on him"?? —Nice vague way of saying without saying.

You're not the only one that amazes me, though I should say I will be measured by my own standard— most of Christendom thinks like you do, that attributing God with a plan and creating according to that plan, and bringing that plan to fruition in this temporal envelope —this life that includes sin against the very Creator— somehow the fact that he not only knew, but planned it, and created it according to that plan somehow to you does not mean CAUSED!!!

You believe and preach He whom I love CAUSED all the sin in the world and it pains me to read such a false accusation.