A Response

Scripture does seem to at least give the impression that God does in fact respond to and react to man's choices. Here is just one of many passage that give that very distinct impression:

Gen 6:5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

And there are many passages where Moses prayed for the Israelites and the scripture APPEARS to teach that God responds. Now, I'm familiar with the anthropomorphic arguments used to explain away the implications of these texts, but such a theological response is not given in the text which brings up this question: "If it is okay for scripture to give the impression that God is reacting to and 'contending with' man and his decisions, then why is it wrong for those reading it to walk away believing that?"

In other words, should our theological theories explain away clear biblical implications and meanings? I assure you that Moses nor the Israelites weren't comforting each other with the anthropomorphic theological theories, instead they were begging God to change his mind and have mercy on them.

Can you expound on this and show how that is possible? The original thought of molesting a child originated where? That heinous thought had to start somewhere and if you don't allow for God's creatures to have first cause ability then you have a God who came up with this sin. How can he remain good in the highest degree? How is this consistent with scripture where it teaches God doesn't even tempt men to evil to now say God determined all evil?

What do you mean? You don't think God is powerful enough to still accomplish His desires in a world where men are free to follow their own desires?

If God created men with the ability to make first cause choices, don't you think he would make necessary provisions to see that His ultimate purposes are accomplished despite those free choices? Or is that just too difficult for God?

I understand, but there is a very distinct difference in most Calvinists view of free will. Most Calvinists limit free will to man's ability to do what he wants. There are two problems with that view.

1) It doesn't draw a distinction between a free choice and the instinctive choices of animals, after all they are both choices according to what one desires.

2) What point is there in pointing to the desire of man as being a determining factor when the desires themselves have been determined by God? It doesn't remove the issue of divine culpability, it just backs it up a step in effort to make its adherents feel a little better about a God who is determining men like Dahmer to think of and act upon such heinous sin.

It is only a problem if you put God on the same playing field as man, which is clearly not the case. He is still omniscient, omnipotent and sovereign over all things. Turn your question around, "How could God, with all his ability, not accomplish His will even in a world where men have the ability to make first cause choices?

Don't you think God's first cause choices (his purposes) could be accomplished despite man's choices? Remember I affirm God ability to foresee and prevent any act of man, so I don't see the problem here.

Do you see why I'm confused by your answers? In your view God didn't merely "determine to allow Dahmer to do as he did," in your view "God determines all that happens in good and evil," remember? That would include the very thought or temptation Dahmer first had which set in motion his heinous crimes. Again this goes back to where the thought originated...I don't think you have really answered that question.

Sure I do, why wouldn't I?

That is a question for both of us to answer because we both affirm God could have intervened to stop Dahmer, but my view only has God allowing evil while your view still seems to have God originating sin.

Yes, I think I am beginning to understand your view, although I disagree with many aspects. If you do anything I asked above, answer my question in defining providence and sovereignty. Also explain how God can allow man be the primary cause agent in both good and evil and still accomplish His will. If you don't know what Im asking, just read my above responses and you should get the idea.

True, but that is a far cry from his originating the evil, which is the issue at hand.

Explain how this works in a system where God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass? In other words, how is God more or less in control over one cause than another? What makes a cause "secondary" when the one who has determined all things is just in control of the first cause as he is the secondary ones?