There is no predestination unto salvation in the Bible

[Dorothy Mae]

While I suspect I know where you get the idea that so-called "Calvinists" make God responsible for sin, I think you do so misunderstanding what it is that is actually being taught... at least by some who are fixed with that label.

Perhaps it could be that you're assuming because God chose people to salvation ( 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Timothy 1:9 ), He predestines all events as well.
I do not hold to that in the strictest sense and I know many who do not...but I know of many who believe the opposite.

Rather, I hold that He does not predestine sin, neither does He tempt men to do so ( James 1:13-15 ).
But He does indeed work all things after the counsel of His own will;

Whether that be allowing us as men to pile up sins to Heaven and then to judge us for them, or choosing to bestow His grace and mercy to someone long before they were born ( Romans 9:22-24 )...
He does it all with total control over His creation despite what it appears to look like on the surface.

There is no "chance" when it comes to who God saves.
A person's will does not influence the Lord in any way, shape or form when it comes to Him granting them the gift of the new birth ( John 1:13, Romans 9:16, James 1:18 ), contrary to what most preachers tell us today.

He is not, and never will be a respecter of persons in the sense of Him being influenced to save anyone by their act of belief, their faith, their riches, or their "good works" or "penance" of any kind.
He saves people according to His grace and mercy alone ( Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14-18 ), and He damns people according to His holiness and justice.

One gets what they do not deserve, and the other gets what they do deserve.
Grace is totally unmerited, while sin merits eternal punishment...

Which we all deserve.

Apologies for my long replies, as I get a bit carried away talking about my Saviour and His words.
May God bless you in your studies, and in your daily life.

Thank you for your answer. It is, however, the same as what everyone else who believe calvinism teaches. I can only tell you that to those who think logically about this theology, the problems are very clear and to those who embrace it, they must cover up the problems with words or "I don't know" when it comes to those matters that show God up in a very bad light. The theology gives his enemies the chance to accuse Him of evil as the description of the above is evil and would be seen clearly if any father treated his children as this description gives and this grieves me.

I also know from experience that you will only become frustrated if I point out the matters that are contradictory. I know from experience that the answer will be that you believe it and that is the end of discussion. You obviously feel secure and happy being only of the lucky chosen for heaven ones. I hope that eternity is the one you will receive, I hope this with all my heart.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Neither have I...
But I have believed that I myself was bound for Hell a time or two since the Lord called me by His grace, and I was terrified.

He has since shown me that because He chose me, the foundation that I had built my house on was not one of sand, but one of being built on the Rock of His Son and His work on the cross for me.

How can you ever be found for hell if you are predestined for Heaven no matter what? Did you think you were bound for hell because of your behaviour or for what reason? Or did calvinism save you from that feeling? This is being pretty honest, by the way and I compliment you for that.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Personally speaking, I embraced biblical election because I see it in the Scriptures for myself.
I don't subscribe to systematic theologies, I don't get my understanding from "Reformed" authors, nor do I follow men like John Calvin, John Wesley or John R. Rice.

I didn't come to it by listening to "Calvinistic" speakers, reading their literature, or being persuaded by their sermons...
I came to it strictly on "my own" over many years of study.

I have to doubt this one because the theology you express is very typical calvinism and there isnt any of it in the scripture. THe predestined in the Bible is not for Heaven but for holiness. There are many warnings to take care not to fall away from the faith and be lost. Many. There are examples named of such although the final judgement is not given, of course. No man got calvinism from studying the BIble as it is not there. Not even Calvin who was not a theologian but a lawyer which is likely why the theology has a legalistic ring to it and is lacking a relationship tie.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

This is amazing. Over and over I say, and demonstrate, that Calvinism does not teach 'no choice'. The Bride has choice. I said no different.

Again, it is you who mistakenly conclude 'no choice' from what Calvinism teaches.

I ask if the bride has a choice and the answer given by one Calvinist is:

Not really, but I think that that that needs to be explained further.

Obviously some Calvinists see that in the theology the bride (believer) has no choice. At least Navair2 admits it.

Now I know this is covered up with "she will want to choose" what she has no choice to do anything else anyway and i know the usual nonsense or incompatible positions you have to embrace to believe the theology. You can tell yourself the many words that attempt to cover up the no choice for the predestined but it still remains. Either you have free choice or there is no free choice. What you want is free choice but predestined to choose one outcome only which is nonsense.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Either you have free choice or there is no free choice.

—See, here you go again. I was all ready for you to say, "Either you have free choice, or there is no choice." But no, you had to say something that means pretty much nothing.

I ask if the bride has no choice and the answer given by one Calvinist is:
Obviously some Calvinists see that in the theology the bride (believer) has no choice. At least Navair2 admits it.

Now I know this is covered up with "she will want to choose" what she has no choice to do anything else anyway and i know the usual nonsense or incompatible positions you have to embrace to believe the theology. You can tell yourself the many words that attempt to cover up the no choice for the predestined but it still remains. Either you have free choice or there is no free choice. What you want is free choice but predestined to choose one outcome only which is nonsense.

I have no idea what you mean by the sentence about covering up. I don't know what you are talking about —'she will want to choose'. Meanwhile it is pretty obvious that you are letting words push your mind around. 'She has no choice but to do' is a figure of speech. It doesn't mean she actually has no choice, but that the choice is obvious.

Do you expect those who don't subscribe to Reformed Theology to be the only ones to draw implications from the tenets and teachings? Why shouldn't Navair draw one or two implications that you also draw? But do you also expect, unlike with any other theology, all who hold to Calvinism to walk in lockstep and mean the same thing by everything they say, and to use the same words? Meanwhile, I expect Navair only meant it as a figure of speech. But he can speak for himself.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Navair2, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for using the "praying for you" emocon as an insult.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Navair2, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for using the "praying for you" emocon as an insult.

Maybe it was a clickographical error. I make them all the time.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

—See, here you go again. I was all ready for you to say, "Either you have free choice, or there is no choice." But no, you had to say something that means pretty much nothing.

I can see why you do not understand the problem with either you have free choice or you have no free choice logically. It is a logical statment. Either you have this or you do not. The point is man has free choice among options. There are choices that are not free, by the way. But responding to God is not one of these although to you, one is.

I have no idea what you mean by the sentence about covering up. I don't know what you are talking about —'she will want to choose'. Meanwhile it is pretty obvious that you are letting words push your mind around. 'She has no choice but to do' is a figure of speech. It doesn't mean she actually has no choice, but that the choice is obvious.

You have to cover up the obvious problem with your theology removing free choice. THis is done by using words. An example is you do not like the word "force" in describing what you believe God does. If there is no free choice that the choice is forced. That is the accurate description but you have to use many words to paint a picture where the manipulated "bride" will have to choose what you think God wants. This is, actually force. "She has no choice" is not a figure of speech. It is the accurate description of what you believe. The fact is, many have been faced with the reality of God and salvation and do not want that life. They refuse. For your thinking this is impossible but it happens. The rich young ruler was given a clear choice and he rejected it. He did not make what you call the "obvious choice" at all.

Do you expect those who don't subscribe to Reformed Theology to be the only ones to draw implications from the tenets and teachings? Why shouldn't Navair draw one or two implications that you also draw? But do you also expect, unlike with any other theology, all who hold to Calvinism to walk in lockstep and mean the same thing by everything they say, and to use the same words? Meanwhile, I expect Navair only meant it as a figure of speech. But he can speak for himself.

He can speak for himself but he put a "praying for you" emocon on a post as a deep insult and so I have no respect for him.

And I have never met the calvinist who was able to draw the obvious conclusions from their embraced theology and remain the same. They take one of two paths, from my experience with them. You have chosen the kinder path and that speaks well of you.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Maybe it was a clickographical error. I make them all the time.

We will see if he removes it. But yes, this is a kind answer and I appreciate you pointing this out. Thank you very much!!

 

[Mark Quayle]

I can see why you do not understand the problem with either you have free choice or you have no free choice logically. It is a logical statment. Either you have this or you do not. The point is man has free choice among options. There are choices that are not free, by the way. But responding to God is not one of these although to you, one is.

Of course it is a logical statement —it is an obvious statement, like, "green is green". It tells us nothing.

I guess I need you to explain this too, since I don't get it: "But responding to God is not one of these although to you, one is." Responding to God is not one of these what? —although to you, one what is?

You have to cover up the obvious problem with your theology removing free choice. THis is done by using words. An example is you do not like the word "force" in describing what you believe God does. If there is no free choice that the choice is forced. That is the accurate description but you have to use many words to paint a picture where the manipulated "bride" will have to choose what you think God wants. This is, actually force. "She has no choice" is not a figure of speech. It is the accurate description of what you believe. The fact is, many have been faced with the reality of God and salvation and do not want that life. They refuse. For your thinking this is impossible but it happens. The rich young ruler was given a clear choice and he rejected it. He did not make what you call the "obvious choice" at all.

Then we were 'forced' to be born, and when God gives you something good you had not expected nor asked for, it is 'forced', according to what you are saying, no? I say 'caused', even 'predestined', 'inexorably sure to happen', but 'force' is a reference to malice or at least, violation of a person's will by a peer.

God caused Ahab to sin, but he did not force Ahab. Not even Ahab's tempter forced Ahab to sin. AHAB chose to sin, and that in accordance to his own will. The blame for Ahab's sin is laid upon Ahab alone.

He can speak for himself but he put a "praying for you" emocon on a post as a deep insult and so I have no respect for him.

And I have never met the calvinist who was able to draw the obvious conclusions from their embraced theology and remain the same. They take one of two paths, from my experience with them. You have chosen the kinder path and that speaks well of you.

Perhaps that is because 'the obvious conclusions' you refer to are not the same as what are obvious to all. I have tried to find what is wrong with Calvinism, and all I find is the mistakes some make in taking it to mean such things as 'there is no need to obey', or 'God's grace only has to do with salvation and not the rest of a Christian's walk'. (Also, I guess, I should mention the focuses and excursions many take, almost as if they consider (or want) Calvinism to be a complete Systematic Theology (it is not), or when they want to join it to something unBiblical.)

Anyhow, thank you for your kind words.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Of course it is a logical statement —it is an obvious statement, like, "green is green". It tells us nothing.

Incorrect. You insist in words the bride has free choice but then say she has to/will/cannot but want to make only one choice because He will so manipulate her internally that she cannot freely choose or will think she is freely choosing but we really know she is not. You like different words which sound better but this is your position.

I guess I need you to explain this too, since I don't get it: "But responding to God is not one of these although to you, one is." Responding to God is not one of these what? —although to you, one what is?

Not well worded on my part. Whether we respond to God as He desires is not a matter He arranges. He calls. He woes. He loves. He blesses. He does not determine our response. Your faith says He does. The whole of the Bible makes no sense if He is determining outcomes of free will. Free will is then a myth.

Then we were 'forced' to be born, and when God gives you something good you had not expected nor asked for, it is 'forced', according to what you are saying, no? I say 'caused', even 'predestined', 'inexorably sure to happen', but 'force' is a reference to malice or at least, violation of a person's will by a peer.

Get it correctly. Our parents, not God, forced us to be born, or at least our mother. We were at that point unable to choose. Our brains were not functioning in that capacity. A person who responds to the call of God is not at that point a brainless being on the intellectual level of an embryo. To say it’s the same is to insult God and man as though only the stupidest of humans responds to God.

God caused Ahab to sin, but he did not force Ahab.

This is a serious accusation of evil against God. I would seriously consider abandoning a theory in which you are comfortable attributing God causing a man to do the Devils bidding, iow, evil.

Not even Ahab's tempter forced Ahab to sin. AHAB chose to sin, and that in accordance to his own will. The blame for Ahab's sin is laid upon Ahab alone.

If God causes a man to sin, then God forced because how can a puny man resist the will of Almighty God when He sets out to cause sin? You yourself believe if God wills a man to be saved he cannot resist. So now you believe if God wills a man to sin (unthinkable evil) that man cannot choose otherwise.

Now if God, in your view, is responsible for our salvation because He predetermined it, how come God is not responsible then for Ahabs sin since God predetermined that one as well?

Perhaps that is because 'the obvious conclusions' you refer to are not the same as what are obvious to all. I have tried to find what is wrong with Calvinism, and all I find is the mistakes some make in taking it to mean such things as 'there is no need to obey', or 'God's grace only has to do with salvation and not the rest of a Christian's walk'. (Also, I guess, I should mention the focuses and excursions many take, almost as if they consider (or want) Calvinism to be a complete Systematic Theology (it is not), or when they want to join it to something unBiblical.)

Anyhow, thank you for your kind words.

You are very welcome! Your own thinking leads you to accuse God of causing Ahab to sin. This is in direct violation of scripture which says God doesn’t even tempt man to sin let alone cause it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Incorrect. You insist in words the bride has free choice but then say she has to/will/cannot but want to make only one choice because He will so manipulate her internally that she cannot freely choose or will think she is freely choosing but we really know she is not. You like different words which sound better but this is your position.

No. I insist she has 'choice'. Not 'free choice' in the sense that God's choice is free: Not uncaused, not spontaneous, not sovereign.

That is, I insist, YOUR view of my position. You are mistaken. God, i.e. First Cause, has caused all things; it is not only unbiblical to say he does not, but illogical, unless (as nobody has done yet in my 65 years) you can show me how cause-and-effect is not pervasive.

In addition to that, I am not, with the 'freewill' debate, referring to the Bride as such. I am talking about all people, including the redeemed regenerated. Not only are we all slaves to sin or slaves to Christ, but our thinking is logically not uncaused.

It is true, that if any creature is free, it is the Bride, but that is not so much talking about choice as about will, mind, heart. We are free to love God, no longer slaves to sin. The son of man has set us free indeed. That does not mean that there is no longer any cause for our choices, but that the paradigm of causes for choices has shifted.

I don't remember if I told you that some atheists happily agree that their choices are indeed caused —some will even go so far as to say they are animals and can't help making the choices they do— but as soon as you tell them First Cause is at the head of all the causes of their choices, they get upset and declare independence. (Specifically, they proclaim there must be no God, then, or he is malevolent.) Yet they can't show what the difference really is. Logically, they still must admit that either way their choices are still caused.

Not well worded on my part. Whether we respond to God as He desires is not a matter He arranges. He calls. He woes. He loves. He blesses. He does not determine our response. Your faith says He does. The whole of the Bible makes no sense if He is determining outcomes of free will. Free will is then a myth.

Yes, Free Will is a myth. Will is not a myth. Choice is not a myth. Why is that a problem for you?

Get it correctly. Our parents, not God, forced us to be born, or at least our mother. We were at that point unable to choose. Our brains were not functioning in that capacity. A person who responds to the call of God is not at that point a brainless being on the intellectual level of an embryo. To say it’s the same is to insult God and man as though only the stupidest of humans responds to God.

How do you know whether a pre-born can choose or not? Further, what would you say for a clinical idiot so severely retarded that he is not even aware of surroundings or concepts in the sense that we are? Can he not gladly apprehend to the gospel of grace —perhaps even understand it more clearly than we can, not having complicated it with supposed truths and concepts?

It continually amazes me how you can ignore the simple logic of cause-and-effect, and place integrity on silly humans as if THEY alone must choose or it isn't real choice.

This is a serious accusation of evil against God. I would seriously consider abandoning a theory in which you are comfortable attributing God causing a man to do the Devils bidding, iow, evil.

God also caused the devil to be. It is not an accident. It was not forseen. But have you not read the story of Ahab? Or of Job? What do you think God was doing? I'm not calling God the author of sin, nor do I say that he tempts. But he causes.

If God causes a man to sin, then God forced because how can a puny man resist the will of Almighty God when He sets out to cause sin? You yourself believe if God wills a man to be saved he cannot resist. So now you believe if God wills a man to sin (unthinkable evil) that man cannot choose otherwise.

If that is the logic, then how can you say man can choose at all? Or do you say that God causes nothing, because man does choose something? Do you draw a line at what God causes by where willed beings choose —i.e. that God causes all other things, just not sin and not choices by moral agents?

By the way, 'resist' is a misused term. Many of the elect resisted much, until God regenerated them. "Irresistible Grace" refers to that regeneration. It does not even mean that all of God's graces are irresistible.

Was Adam's fall not in God's plan? Every unsaved person is a slave to sin. where is their freewill? God says they cannot submit to God's law. Yet did not God know this was going to happen before he created, yet he went ahead and created them anyway? By your logic then, why is he not to blame for the fact that they sin, since they are born sinners?

You seem to think God has to readjust for every choice he could not cause to come out how he planned. This is what I was referring to by your god flying by the seat of his pants. Logically, whether by direct or by indirect action, and by his own council, God has caused all things that come to pass.

Now if God, in your view, is responsible for our salvation because He predetermined it, how come God is not responsible then for Ahabs sin since God predetermined that one as well?

Depends on what one means by responsible. In one sense, he is —that is, he did cause that sin be. Also he did cause all effects and subsequent causes. But he is not responsible in the sense that he sinned, nor that he tempts anyone to sin.

But, God is good. Sin is not like Goodness. It is not a positive. It is only the privation of good. If anything good happens, it is obvious that God is the original cause by merits of the nature of the thing. But when sin happens, it is the work of the sinful nature and the author of sin (Satan), set in place by God, for good. God "intended" what Joseph's brothers so sinfully did. God intended what Satan did to Job. God intended that Ahab be deceived and continue down the road he had started to go down in rebellion to God.

You are very welcome! Your own thinking leads you to accuse God of causing Ahab to sin. This is in direct violation of scripture which says God doesn’t even tempt man to sin let alone cause it.

Agreed it does say that God does not tempt man to sin. But where does it say he does not cause that sin be, nor "cause all things whatsoever shall come to pass"?

 

[Navair2]

Navair2, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for using the "praying for you" emocon as an insult.

It wasn't meant as an insult, dear lady.

[Remainder of comment retracted. Reason: Acts of the Apostles 24:16 ]

My apologies for your offense.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It wasn't meant as an insult, dear lady.
I meant it in all sincerity that God would show you the truth of salvation, and the truth of His words about each and every subject contained in His precious ( and very often sobering ) Book.

However, if you view it as an insult ( rather than a sincere and heart-felt wish on my part that was motivated by sadness ), then I will of course remove it.

My apologies for your offense.

It was certainly meant as a deep put down. It was condescending and if you had really cared and were going to really pray, you would have done as God commands and prayed in SECRET not announcing to the world that you, pious man that you are, are praying (trumpets here) for the unfortunate one who isn’t up
to your level of understanding.

If you wanted to make amends, you ought to apologize for your behavior. I am not offended, just sorry you stoop to using “praying for you” so condescendingly.

But I will comfort you that in my first discussion with a Calvinist I asked God what to say to their interpretations and He told me in words that still ring. He also showed me His heart on the matters discussed with calvinists. Very personal and very powerful. I have prayed for many a calvinist but I never once told them I was doing so because I loved them too much to do so.

So you needn’t pray. He’s answered already far beyond what you could possibly imagine.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

We will see if he removes it. But yes, this is a kind answer and I appreciate you pointing this out. Thank you very much!!

He intended to be condescending. A fruit of his faith which allows him to behave like a “glad Im not like this one next to me but I’ll pray for the poor soul” man. He thinks he’s better than me and said so.

 

[TedT]

Predestination is never, ever, ever, that of lost man unto salvation.

Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

There is no way that a sinner can have his predestination to be conformed to the son without being saved from his sins... <head shake, facepalm>

 

[Mark Quayle]

The analogy doesn't stand because, in the Bible, it's the body that is adopted, after salvation. It's not the spirit upon salvation.

Rom 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Please consider watching the full video in the OP.

Apparently, then, God has to sit back and watch the adopted person accidentally be saved.

 

[Navair2]

It was certainly meant as a deep put down. It was condescending and if you had really cared and were going to really pray, you would have done as God commands and prayed in SECRET not announcing to the world that you, pious man that you are, are praying (trumpets here) for the unfortunate one who isn’t up
to your level of understanding.

If you wanted to make amends, you ought to apologize for your behavior. I am not offended, just sorry you stoop to using “praying for you” so condescendingly.

But I will comfort you that in my first discussion with a Calvinist I asked God what to say to their interpretations and He told me in words that still ring. He also showed me His heart on the matters discussed with calvinists. Very personal and very powerful. I have prayed for many a calvinist but I never once told them I was doing so because I loved them too much to do so.

So you needn’t pray. He’s answered already far beyond what you could possibly imagine.

No it was not.

[Remainder of comment retracted. Reason: Acts of the Apostles 24:16 ]

Please accept my sincere apologies.

He intended to be condescending. A fruit of his faith which allows him to behave like a “glad Im not like this one next to me but I’ll pray for the poor soul” man. He thinks he’s better than me and said so.

No, I did not.

[Remainder of comment retracted. Reason: Acts of the Apostles 24:16 ]

I wish you well, and the Lord's blessings upon you.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No it was not.

Yes it was. You assume you know and me, the lowly one, I need your prayers to come up to your level. That is condescending.

But it does seem as if I've struck a nerve that I hadn't intended to, so I ask your forgiveness for personally offending you by placing a praying symbol ( and since removing it ) under your comment.

Since you don’t feel you’ve done anything wrong in the eyes of God then forgiveness isn’t needed. You think you did well. I’m not offended. I just recognize condescension when I see it.

Please accept my sincere apologies.

No forgiveness requested so none needed but an apology for something you didn’t accomplish is accepted if that makes your feelings better.

However, you're apparently convinced otherwise, so in the best interests of keeping the peace between us, I will agree to place you on "ignore" so I'm not tempted to make any more replies to your posts here on this forum.
May I suggest that you do the same with me?

You are free to do so since you haven’t answers to my points. I, however, am not.

As it stands, I'm genuinely confused by the reaction that I've gotten from you after only a few posts, but I strongly suspect that I know where it's coming from...
and it has nothing to do with what you call "Calvinism" as a set of doctrines.

I very strongly suspect you couldn’t be more wrong. I’m very sorry for you and all calvinists. Very sorry,

That said,
This will be my last reply in this thread.

I wish you well, and the Lord's blessings upon you.

Same to you, very much same to you.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No. I insist she has 'choice'. Not 'free choice' in the sense that God's choice is free: Not uncaused, not spontaneous, not sovereign.

That is, I insist, YOUR view of my position. You are mistaken. God, i.e. First Cause, has caused all things; it is not only unbiblical to say he does not, but illogical, unless (as nobody has done yet in my 65 years) you can show me how cause-and-effect is not pervasive.

In addition to that, I am not, with the 'freewill' debate, referring to the Bride as such. I am talking about all people, including the redeemed regenerated. Not only are we all slaves to sin or slaves to Christ, but our thinking is logically not uncaused.

It is true, that if any creature is free, it is the Bride, but that is not so much talking about choice as about will, mind, heart. We are free to love God, no longer slaves to sin. The son of man has set us free indeed. That does not mean that there is no longer any cause for our choices, but that the paradigm of causes for choices has shifted.

I don't remember if I told you that some atheists happily agree that their choices are indeed caused —some will even go so far as to say they are animals and can't help making the choices they do— but as soon as you tell them First Cause is at the head of all the causes of their choices, they get upset and declare independence. (Specifically, they proclaim there must be no God, then, or he is malevolent.) Yet they can't show what the difference really is. Logically, they still must admit that either way their choices are still caused.
Yes, Free Will is a myth. Will is not a myth. Choice is not a myth. Why is that a problem for you?

How do you know whether a pre-born can choose or not? Further, what would you say for a clinical idiot so severely retarded that he is not even aware of surroundings or concepts in the sense that we are? Can he not gladly apprehend to the gospel of grace —perhaps even understand it more clearly than we can, not having complicated it with supposed truths and concepts?

It continually amazes me how you can ignore the simple logic of cause-and-effect, and place integrity on silly humans as if THEY alone must choose or it isn't real choice.



God also caused the devil to be. It is not an accident. It was not forseen. But have you not read the story of Ahab? Or of Job? What do you think God was doing? I'm not calling God the author of sin, nor do I say that he tempts. But he causes.

If that is the logic, then how can you say man can choose at all? Or do you say that God causes nothing, because man does choose something? Do you draw a line at what God causes by where willed beings choose —i.e. that God causes all other things, just not sin and not choices by moral agents?

By the way, 'resist' is a misused term. Many of the elect resisted much, until God regenerated them. "Irresistible Grace" refers to that regeneration. It does not even mean that all of God's graces are irresistible.

Was Adam's fall not in God's plan? Every unsaved person is a slave to sin. where is their freewill? God says they cannot submit to God's law. Yet did not God know this was going to happen before he created, yet he went ahead and created them anyway? By your logic then, why is he not to blame for the fact that they sin, since they are born sinners?

You seem to think God has to readjust for every choice he could not cause to come out how he planned. This is what I was referring to by your god flying by the seat of his pants. Logically, whether by direct or by indirect action, and by his own council, God has caused all things that come to pass.



Depends on what one means by responsible. In one sense, he is —that is, he did cause that sin be. Also he did cause all effects and subsequent causes. But he is not responsible in the sense that he sinned, nor that he tempts anyone to sin.

But, God is good. Sin is not like Goodness. It is not a positive. It is only the privation of good. If anything good happens, it is obvious that God is the original cause by merits of the nature of the thing. But when sin happens, it is the work of the sinful nature and the author of sin (Satan), set in place by God, for good. God "intended" what Joseph's brothers so sinfully did. God intended what Satan did to Job. God intended that Ahab be deceived and continue down the road he had started to go down in rebellion to God.

Agreed it does say that God does not tempt man to sin. But where does it say he does not cause that sin be, nor "cause all things whatsoever shall come to pass"?

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.