>> "Though God is the FIRST CAUSE of all that has/will/can happen He may do this without violating the “free agency” of man and thus hold man accountable for sin."
How can God be the first cause of our sinful actions, and yet hold us accountable to them? Are you saying that God caused me to sin, but I am still accountable for it?
>> "Are you the POT going to tell the POTTER He can't do as He pleases with His creation? Are you an Arminian so willful that you are willing to wave your will in the face of God and tell God His will is wrong?"
Not at all! God is sovereign in showing mercy to us. We do not deserve to be the recipients of his mercy, but if you carry on reading Romans 9:20ff, there is the wonderful truth that he has chosen to show his mercy to the Gentiles who, in Old Testament times, were not his people (vv. 24-25). Paul is not dealing with unconditional election in terms of individual salvation.
>> "I do believe it is better to interact with the Scripture, so once again, how do you exegete Acts 2:23, where we see perfect sovereignty and free agency"
Peter says, "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death..."
This same apostle, later says in his first epistle that Jesus was "chosen before the creation of the world" (1:20). God purposed that his Son should redeem the world through his precious blood (v. 19). The wicked acts of the Jews, however, was according to God's foreknowledge. God foreknew that in sending his Son, the Jews would crucify the Messiah. In other words, God foreknew the free acts of his creatures, and purposed that the Son should be crucified by their wicked hands, because through it, his blood would atone for our sins.
There is nothing in Acts 2:23 which would suggest that God caused the Jews to act sinfully - they did so out of their own free will.
>> "While I do believe as you stated, "Man's freedom is limited..."
Man's limited freedom doesn't meant that he doesn't have free will. Without a free will, there is no freedom (limited or not). I therefore question your statement that you believe man's freedom is limited. According to Calvinism, man is not free - I was taught that he was only free to sin!
>> "it is not merely because of Gods foreknowledge;it something more? Ask yourself, Can God have foreknowledge of something He did not first foreordain?"
I agree that there are certain events which God first foreordained, such as the choosing of Israel as his people, the sending of his Son, and the means of salvation. In this, his foreordination was not based on his foreknowledge. However, sometimes his foreordination is based on his foreknowledge, in particular, individual salvation (e.g. Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:4; 1 Pet. 1:2).
(2) FRED
You wrote:
>> "Would not God be meddling with her will, influencing it in some direction?"
Does meddling equal influencing? Does an irresistible will equal wooing?
>> "So the issue with you is the means by which God brings about the person's death? God is not allowed morally to bring about a person's death by the hands of sinners? Say for instance the two fellows beheaded in Iraq this week?"
The "means" - correct. Did God move the hearts and minds of the terrorists to behead the two Americans?
You said that God foreordained the means to Leigh's death. So are you saying that in order for God to accomplish this murderous act, God must have forced / meddled / persuaded their wills to decide to kidnap and murder Leigh. Correct?
You seem to deny this in your next answer: "If by 'bring about the decisions' you mean to say, 'Did God force them against their will' then no, God did not force them."
Then how did God foreordain the means to Leigh's death without forcing them against their will? Did God foreknow that they were going to do this out of their own free will - for Calvinists do admit that man is free only to sin - and then he foreordained that it should happen as such? If you agree, then you are saying that foreordination is based on his foreknowledge. Of course, Calvinists could never admit to this.
In answer to my question if the kidnappers could have chosen otherwise (i.e. not to murder Leigh), you answered "No". So, they weren't forced to commit the deed, but they couldn't have chosen otherwise? I'm sorry, but the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty and man's accountability is contradictory and illogical.
>> "Peter specifically states that Jesus was delivered up by the predetermined and ordained purposes of God..."
Yes, but you missed out that one word from Acts 2:23: "foreknowledge".
>> "In light of the necessity of fulfilled prophecy, could Pilate had chosen to release Jesus inspite of the Jews demand to crucify him?"
Yes, Pilate could have chosen otherwise, but God foreknew that he wouldn't. Again, "foreknowledge" in Acts 2:23 always seems to go amiss with Calvinists. It did with me.
>> "What about Joseph's brothers who sold him into salvery. Seeing that it was God's preordained intention to save a nation of people alive (Genesis 50:19,20), could Joseph's brothers chosen to be good toward their brother and not mean evil against him? Their evil act was clearly the vehicle God used to save the people."
Yes, God wonderfully USED the evil acts of Joseph's brothers in order to save his people from famine. However, the text doesn't say anywhere that God CAUSED the sinful actions of Joseph's brothers. The brothers could have chosen that which was right, and God would have provided another way of sending Joseph into Egypt.
