I hold a view similar to the Open View of God.

[Mark Quayle]

If you are correct, then there is no other causation than first cause, but the Bible does not say this.

And neither do I. You are using the notion as axiomatic, that if First Cause is the only First Cause (which is logically necessary, BTW), that it means there are no other causes. You don't show how that is so. You just assert it. But it is false. The "Chains of Causation" demonstrate it rather clearly: Any one thing causes an effect, which itself in turn causes further effects. If God is First Cause, then he not only is at the head of all chains but set up the reality of all effects and their subsequent causing. God "invented" the principle of cause-and-effect.

The creation account alone specifies at least 6 distinct interventions by God, or 6 different causes. These causes are probably broken down in reality into multiple smaller interventions by God. Humans at this point don't exist until the 7th cause. God didn't just create a big bang (the true first cause in our universe), he caused the energy and shaped it as he went. That is clear by a reading of Genesis 1.

I haven't said otherwise.

Man is given many choices in the Bible. None of them imply that he wanted man to choose the wrong thing. Here's what your ideology means.

Define "wanted" when man applies it to God. Are you not engaging in anthropomorphism? God is not like us. We are like him, (though not very much.) But even then, there are even in humans at least two kinds/or phases of "wanting". (For eg, I might want to stay alive, while wishing that I could keep my money from the guy with the gun.) But you want to lump it all into one thing.

Jesus wished he did not have to undergo his sacrifice on our behalf, but, for the joy that was before him, endured it.

Genesis 2:16,17 - God warns Adam that he must not eat from the tree, or he will die.
(God intended Adam and Eve to die.)

Not only to die, but he intended them, and their progeny, to need redemption.

Genesis 4:6, 7 - God warns Cain not to be angry and submit to sin.
(God intended Cain to murder Abel)

Does the story of Cain and Abel not glorify God? See the potter in Romans 9:14-21, and read, again, 9:22,23, for the reason he does this. Have you considered the difference between the potter's will and the will of the clay?

Genesis 6:5, 7 - Humans were wicked and violent. They must be destroyed.
(God intended man to be violent but destroys them for being so. At least God feels regret in the meantime in verse 6, anthropomorphic language or not.)

Does he indeed? Have you considered the other translations and the interlinear and the ancient Hebrew mindset, the context of God's abhorrence to ungodliness and perversion of good? Anthropomorphic language, at the least!

Then, go to what I have just said. [At least] two kinds of wanting, one of them in context can be called, "regret".

Or, are you going to say that all the sin Adam and Eve, and Cain, and those God drowned, all happened by accident?

Genesis 11 - Humans rebel again against God and build a tower.
(God intends them to rebel, but punishes them anyway, and they scatter abroad as he originally intended.)

You may find it interesting that God (didn't I mention this before?) used foreign rulers to punish Israel (even calls one of them his tool to use against Israel) then turns around and punishes that king for doing so? Intention? Yep, for sure.

Do I need to repeat that God intended what happened to Jesus Christ? Acts 2:23

I've already mentioned Joseph and his brothers: "You indeed intended it for evil, but God intended it for good."

Yep. God intended it.

Genesis 19 - Sodom and Gomorrah are wicked and are going to be destroyed. Lot's family is warned to leave.
(God intends for Sodom and Gomorrah to be wicked so that he can destroy them dramatically along with Lot's wife who was also destined to become a pillar of salt, maybe to provide an opening for Lot's daughters to have Lot's children.)

Note that if any of the above humans had chosen righteous paths, it would not have broken any prophecies to this point. (Adam and Even sinned before the first prophecy.)

Pardon me, but I fail to see how whether it would or would not have broken any prophesies, as far as you know, has any relevance to whether he intended or did not intend for them to sin. Are you appealing to that semi-Pelagian notion that God only looks at the big picture, and only has a general end result in mind? And that he (as I put it) flies by the seat of his pants in reaction to what humans do, in order to salvage what he can of that end result? Do you try to glorify God by that amount of smarts he must have to be able to accomplish that, rather than to see him glorifying himself by choosing some for one end and others for another use?

I will admit at this point that there is a 430-year period where the story is predestined, which follows the prophecies to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; however, it also follows that God is actively intervening throughout. (Joseph's dreams resulting in his brother's jealousy, Potiphar, Pharaoh's dreams, Moses, and the text explicitly saying that Pharaoh's heart was hardened during the 10 plagues.)

But wait? Are you saying that for 430 years predestination prevails, but not for the rest of history? Why does it prevail there? "That's not fair!" Did those people not have freewill?

Now, in this period, we have your scriptural quote:



Now I asked for a quote that suggested that God caused or wants sin and/or evil in the world. This scripture is not it. What it says specifically is that man (Joseph's brothers) intended evil, and God intended good.

What it says is that God intended "IT" (what Joseph's brothers intended for evil), for good. Why leave out the proposition?

This is again illogical. God caused that there be sin, but he did not sin. The chain of causality suggests that if God did not sin by causing evil,

Small misrepresentation, as before. What I said was, "God caused that there be evil." Rather obvious what I mean, no? Every effect has a cause. We sin, God caused US.

then man does not sin either by being evil.

False. Rather badly false.

If I give a gun to a small child who doesn't know any better or even know what it is and he points it at someone and pulls the trigger, then who is more guilty? Me or the child?

Bad comparison. Are you saying that, since Adam's fall, those not born again don't live at enmity with God? Every breath they breathe is at enmity with God. And Romans 1 says that they are without excuse. Where is the "doesn't know any better"?

This says that God planned the redemption, not sin. This says nothing about God wanting evil or sin. Furthermore, he calls those who killed Jesus wicked.

Funny you don't say, "God wanted the redemption". You are right he planned it. And he wanted it more than he wanted that there be no sin during this temporal existence of ours. You may notice here, that you assess a whole lot more value to this temporal life than God seems to.

Evil/sin must be, so that there is a need for Redemption. Is it really that hard to see? What other kind of redemption is there, at this level of grace?

Whether I sin or not in the end has no impact on God's promises. Even Jesus said this about his disciples:

Luke 19:40 - "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."

God does not need us. He wants us to come to him willingly which we cannot do without free will on our part.

God does not need us. That is true. But he wants those he chose for his own, and he will not lose even one of them. He will accomplish EVERY thing he set out to do. And, logically, it follows then that the specific end he planned and will accomplish, use EVERY little thing he causes to transpire on this temporal "plain", to be MEANS to that end.

There is only one way to any specific end. (Yes, that is logical, or his ends are not specific.)

And this doesn't even get into his Attributes of Immanence and Simplicity.

 

[SuperCow]

Define "wanted" when man applies it to God. Are you not engaging in anthropomorphism? God is not like us. We are like him, (though not very much.) But even then, there are even in humans at least two kinds/or phases of "wanting". (For eg, I might want to stay alive, while wishing that I could keep my money from the guy with the gun.) But you want to lump it all into one thing.

Here's how I define wanted in the context of predestination.

God announced he was going to create man. (Genesis 1:26) God knew what he was creating. God knew the consequences of creating humans. God knew what humans would do. God could have chosen to create humans differently in any number of respects. God could have prevented the temptation of sin.

God created man anyway. Therefore, having full control over the process and fulling knowing the outcome, God wanted whatever outcome he knew was going to happen including their preponderance for evil.

Jesus wished he did not have to undergo his sacrifice on our behalf, but, for the joy that was before him, endured it.

Jesus is a special case and prophesied in Genesis 3:15 as an antidote to the causality of disobedience. It was not predestined until sin entered the world.

Not only to die, but he intended them, and their progeny, to need redemption.

Therefore, he doomed them to sin, and unless you believe everyone is going to be redeemed regardless of their actions or repentance, he doomed most of us to destruction.

Does the story of Cain and Abel not glorify God? See the potter in Romans 9:14-21, and read, again, 9:22,23, for the reason he does this. Have you considered the difference between the potter's will and the will of the clay?

Thanks for pointing me to Romans 9. It is a brilliant chapter and shows that a very similar debate likely existed even back then. But do you see that Paul's point is to rebuke those who use predestination as an excuse for their lives, especially in verse 20? I realize you are not doing this, because you believe we are responsible for our actions even if we were made in a way that there could be no other actions. In other words, you refuse to follow the paradox of predestination to its logical resolution.

But it is not a paradox for God, having control over us and our environment, to be able to predict an outcome by prophecy. And Paul, by referencing God's control over Pharaoh in Exodus shows us that God will intervene when necessary. In specific instances God will remove our free will as punishment or for whatever other reasons he deems necessary. He took away the right of free will to every firstborn in Egypt on the 10th plague. There's no reason that God cannot predestine events by prophecy and still give us free will through our choice to serve God.

Does he indeed? Have you considered the other translations and the interlinear and the ancient Hebrew mindset, the context of God's abhorrence to ungodliness and perversion of good? Anthropomorphic language, at the least!

Then, go to what I have just said. [At least] two kinds of wanting, one of them in context can be called, "regret".

Certainly. And I am thankful that BibleGateway.com allows me easily to review hundreds of translations if I want. I regularly compare KJV, NIV, ASV, RSV, and for Old Testament scriptures, the LXX. I also have a Greek interlinear, a translation of the dead sea scrolls, and occasionally look for context in related sources like Josephus, Enoch, Jasher and the apocryphal writings.

Or, are you going to say that all the sin Adam and Eve, and Cain, and those God drowned, all happened by accident?

No, he gave Adam and Eve every chance to succeed, warned Cain when he was becoming jealous of Abel, had Noah preach to others to be saved. In all cases he warned of consequences. These are pointless acts if there is no chance of saving them. No, it did not happen by accident. It happened through bad choices by man exerting their free will.

You may find it interesting that God (didn't I mention this before?) used foreign rulers to punish Israel (even calls one of them his tool to use against Israel) then turns around and punishes that king for doing so? Intention? Yep, for sure.

Yes, I know that he used Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and Cyrus of Persia explicitly, and he allowed Israel to be oppressed through the Judges and monarchial periods, but without specifics I think you are misconstruing the text.

Do I need to repeat that God intended what happened to Jesus Christ? Acts 2:23

No. I have no disagreement against that. It was prophesied, and it came true. Just because we have freewill doesn't mean that certain outcomes aren't predestined to occur through God's promises and prophecies. It's not a zero-sum game in that either God knows everything or God knows nothing. God knows what he chooses to know.

Pardon me, but I fail to see how whether it would or would not have broken any prophesies, as far as you know, has any relevance to whether he intended or did not intend for them to sin. Are you appealing to that semi-Pelagian notion that God only looks at the big picture, and only has a general end result in mind? And that he (as I put it) flies by the seat of his pants in reaction to what humans do, in order to salvage what he can of that end result? Do you try to glorify God by that amount of smarts he must have to be able to accomplish that, rather than to see him glorifying himself by choosing some for one end and others for another use?

First of all, I think that neither of us with any certainty can claim anything about God. All we can do is refer to scripture and logic and make our best determinations. If everything was explicitly spelled out in scripture for every little disagreement that might occur, it would be easier to keep the church unified. I'm not sure if the Pelagian monicker is a prelude to calling me a heretic (I had to look up on Wikipedia what that meant), but after reading about it, I suppose I am sympathetic to some of his ideas though I think he goes too far.

Adam and Eve were the only people who had the free will to choose perfection. After they rejected it, all of their descendants inherited this imperfection. This required the intervention and prophecies leading to divine grace through Jesus' sacrifice, the only other human capable of perfection.

This sacrifice initiated the call to all humans through grace to come to God. We have freewill to choose, because of Jesus' sacrifice. That doesn't mean that we can achieve perfection, but that our sins in this life are forgiven through God's grace through that sacrifice if we choose to repent.

2 Peter 3:9 - "The Lord ... is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

How can God want everyone to come to repentance, but not give everyone the circumstances or reality to choose it?

But wait? Are you saying that for 430 years predestination prevails, but not for the rest of history? Why does it prevail there? "That's not fair!" Did those people not have freewill?

God knows what he chooses to know.

Bad comparison. Are you saying that, since Adam's fall, those not born again don't live at enmity with God? Every breath they breathe is at enmity with God. And Romans 1 says that they are without excuse. Where is the "doesn't know any better"?

Because there can be no reality where they are not enemies with God. It was never an option. It is a reality fully rebuked in your reference to Romans 9:20.

Funny you don't say, "God wanted the redemption". You are right he planned it. And he wanted it more than he wanted that there be no sin during this temporal existence of ours. You may notice here, that you assess a whole lot more value to this temporal life than God seems to.

Evil/sin must be, so that there is a need for Redemption. Is it really that hard to see? What other kind of redemption is there, at this level of grace?

I believe is that there is no need for redemption until humans sinned. Do you believe that God never intended for man to live on Earth for more than 100 years or so? Genesis should say "Let us make this planet a temporary lodging for our creation, so when they sin and die they can be redeemed and fly around endlessly in the heavens."

Psalms 37:29 - "The righteous will inherit the land, and dwell in it forever."

 

[Mark Quayle]

And that reality is one in which at least some of the participants make new reality. That's how God made us. I think it's one way we are made in God's image.

What do you mean by "first cause"? Do you mean that the first causer causes in a predetermined way for all subsequent causers? Then there are many things for which God is not the first causer. If I write a sentence, like this one, God is the first causer in that without His causation of me, and all the things that preceded me such that I came to be (not to mention all the things that happened after I came to be that shaped my personality), but He is not ordinarily the first causer of my thoughts and actions. In other words, His first causation was not a sufficient cause of my writing of this paragraph. More was needed.

No, not in a predetermined fashion.

Only insofar as that is how He describes Himself.

I'm not sure how that notion helps, but if you are presuming that our thoughts are only God's thoughts, the Bible tells us you are incorrect.

Why is that necessary? You seem to be saying that if God is not directing our every choice, the choice must be random. Why?Are you saying that God did not create us capable of making choices?

If you've been reading my posts, you know I'm not saying we don't choose. Of course we choose. What do you think choice is?

Welcome to the club.

I have done more than to merely assert. I have shown, according to the logical law of causation, that God is the first cause of all that follows, (if God is God, after all). And all that follows includes our choices.

God is not a sufficient first cause to produce my post.

What does that even mean? "Sufficient first cause"?

Why is self determination a problem? He didn't say "self-creation" after all

I didn't say self-determination is a problem. Those I characterize as INSISTING on self-determination (by which I intend, those who claim that God did not determine that some 'for example' come about) are operating under the assumption that they are little first-causes --that they absolutely are sources of "new". They can't prove it. They can't even demonstrate how it can be so. All they can do is assert it.