In Calvinism why are the sinners God made responsible for what God has made them?

[Fastfredy0]

Why can we seek Him.
You say FREE WILL, I say God changed our desires causing us to seek Him.

Please allow me to butt in.

Gee, as I recall ... when I asked you to define FREE WILL you merely suggested its the ability to make a choice and you completely ignored the FREE part of FREE WILL. Assuming that you definition has not changed... I agree with you that we can make choices. As I recall, you believe in inclusiveism which is another gospel so one can make a choice leading to salvation without knowing of Christ ... but give it your best shot ...

God’s revelation of himself is what makes it so we can seek him. Inherent in the testimony of God is the faith, the capacity, to believe and trust in that word of testimony. For faith (the evidence and conviction of things not seen) comes to a person through the hearing of the word. And it is upon this supernatural conviction that a person can then choose to retain the word of God’s testimony within themselves and trust in it and be saved. Most reject the testimony of God and choose not to retain the word of faith God has sent to them and they are molded on the Potter’s wheel into vessels fit for destruction (Jeremiah 18:4, Romans 9:22) Just as those who do receive it are molded into vessels prepared for glory (Romans 9:23)

Gee, now you sound like a Calvinist. Quote:

And it is upon this supernatural conviction that a person can then choose to retain the word of God’s testimony within themselves and trust in it and be saved.

Agree, God supernaturally convicts (regeneration) causes one to believe.
Complete agreement with your statement.

 

[Fastfredy0]

It reminds me of Job chapters 38-41, where Job was interrogated and schooled by Yawheh to bring a right understanding of Himself.

Oh, I always loved that non-answer God gave. (where "non-answer" was to avoid a direct answer as men define it).
Sure put Job in his place.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

*Scratches his head in bewilderment* So, Calvinism and non-Calvinism agree. What's your point?

I think you're pretending to be confused.

In non-Calvinistic theology the sinner becomes responsible for his sin when he hears the testimony of the Spirit. He is not born/created responsible as Calvinism says.

I'm pretty sure you understood that difference in what I was saying.

 

[electedbyHim]

Jeremiah 18:1-10 shows us the molding and shaping that God determines that he will do at his own discretion is in this life prior to the final judgement, not prior to creation, and he does it in response to how the clay is responding to his molding and shaping.

He chooses whether or not to continue to work with the marred clay in his hands, and patiently endures those pots he has hardened knowing they are destined for destruction, being unworkable in his hands, but useful for showing the riches of His glory to the vessels prepared in advance on his potter's wheel for glory.

That Biblical interpretation of Romans 9:14-23 I can accept. Calvin's misguided interpretation I can not.

I have posted those verses before to that question and I will say that you are the first to accept them.

Many want to condescendingly teach me what they really mean.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Agree, God supernaturally convicts (regeneration) causes one to believe.

Conviction is not regeneration. It's simply being convicted by God that the gospel is for real that you otherwise have no way of knowing is really true or not. It is from this place of informed revelation, when it happens, that a person can then receive and retain that truth into themselves in believing and be saved. Or not do that if that's what they want to do with it. The response to God's calling is our choice. But the when and how of God's calling belongs to him completely, and so we are all at his mercy in that regard.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Oh, I always loved that non-answer God gave. (where "non-answer" was to avoid a direct answer as men define it).
Sure put Job in his place.

The question of God's sovereignty in why men suffer is somewhat mysterious to men. Something we simply can not fully grasp. But the matter of God's sovereignty in the matter of what he does with clay that can not be worked in his hands is not. That is spelled out for us in Jeremiah 18.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Gee, as I recall ... when I asked you to define FREE WILL you merely suggested its the ability to make a choice and you completely ignored the FREE part of FREE WILL.

I'm pretty sure I gave you a complete explanation. Twice, I think.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I agree with you that we can make choices. As I recall, you believe in inclusiveism which is another gospel so one can make a choice leading to salvation without knowing of Christ ... but give it your best shot ...

God's testimony to those without the law is a limited revelation of the gospel. Not another gospel. One given in the absence of the specific knowledge of the Son of promise revealed in the law and the prophets and the writings of the New Testament.

Paul says their response to that limited revelation and testimony of God is sufficient to either condemn or acquit them on the day of Christ.

I know you don't agree with that but you have not explained who those people are that are saved, or condemned, apart from the revelation of the gospel in the law and the NT but which Paul clearly says exist.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Did the properties of the water change as he started to sink?

Well, the bible does not state how Peter or Christ could walk upon it. I believe one possibility was God changed the property of the water, or of Peter, or of gravity .... and I think you've said God can't change the properties of materials.
Neither of us can offer proof. God is transcendent. He speaks and it is done .. science be damned.
I think it might be time to move on from whether or not "properties of matter" or immutable or not. I've said that the "properties of matter" rarely change. This is the is the presupposition that science and deism is founded upon.

me too, very salty but no, walking wouldn’t work. Nice mud though.

You were at the dead sea? Kewl ... water was nasty tasting though. I windsurfed on ocean and hated the salt...stings the eyes .. prefer fresh water.
I think there was a restaurant or hotel at the dead sea that had the best desserts I ever had ... though, maybe I have it confused with another location in Israel.


Re: Christians seeking God

Then Him requiring US to seek Him makes no sense. He doesn’t say he does this and no NT preacher says he does this.

This may be a matter of semantics ... we been on enough tangents so I will let is go. I am starting to lose what the exact theme (what we are debating) of the discussion is to be honest.
We need a 'statement to objectify the what we are discussing' ... gone to 'indoctrination' and 'attributes of properties' and a few other tangents to the point I am getting lost ... lol

Re: Properties

Well all of science rests on that and for centuries. Some amazing developments have occurred as a result.

Agreed. Our disagreement was, IMO, whether there are rare exceptions. Enough of properties and their immutability or rare mutability.


Re: Getting booted

They do? When? I don’t believe it. I’m on the brink of being booted off.

Hey, I was threatened and it took me by complete surprise.
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows. (irrelevant comment ... just a thought that came to mind... ignore me)

Re: my disclaimer to cover my butt ...

No accusations at all. I’m enjoying the interaction. So far you don’t insult and it’s very refreshing. You’re great!

Phew, can't be too safe. You could be an undercover administrator try to entrap me. 2



Re: Premise 2: All of Christ's requests to God are granted because He is God (He's basically asking Himself)
Your response:

Wrong. He asked to avoid the cross. Not granted.

Ah, but Christ's request had a caveat ... 42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
So, Christ did get what he asked for.
Aside: Yeah, I thought of that objection when I created the premise .... again, don't want to go on another tangent to discuss this point.... I'm getting lost in the details about the details about ...
Aside: Hey you're pretty smart. I think to be fair I should get some type of handicap ... say, I time in 5 you admit I am correct no matter what? Would be helpful to tell me when the 5th time came up so I could hold my fire and then promote a ZINGER. Please? 2

But Jesus asked you to pray his will be done. Why if it always is??

I've heard the answer/theory is that Christ did it for our edification.
Example John 11:42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.
... could be it was His human nature I suppose... said nature not be all-knowing


Re: Please provide scripture showing God's will is not followed.

“They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.” Example of His will not being done. Jesus said people would kill others THINKING they are doing the will of God but aren’t. Look around. Do you do the will of God?

Yeah, when I asked the question I was afraid we might go down this rabbit hole.
This sort of thing portends to cast God as contradicting Himself.
Premise 1: "it never entered my [God's] mind
Premise 2: "God is all-knowing
Conclusion: God contradicts Himself (or He lies)
Proposed solution: Anthropomorphism (not like the bible says it an Anthropomorphism, but the alternative is devastating to Christianity. (Aside: also thought of God's moral will is not followed as He wishes we not sin ... but don't want to go down that tangent) ...

Do you do the will of God?

Yes and no. Yeah, I know, what kind of answer is that. His moral will I do not follow. His sovereign will I follow perfectly. In other words, I don't follow His standards, but His sovereign will I follow. Psalm 33:15; Psalm 33:10; Proverbs 16:9; like I can list 80 such verses, some more direct to the point I am making than others.
We going on another tangent...

There’s no evidence God sees this split. None at all. But please show in scripture these two wills.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/171F8bQlCFHGQL-c8uZraPQ-nOqcyQ7nO/view?usp=share_link
.. so many tangents ...

We want and don’t have so we take. We don’t have cause we don’t ask. We ask and don’t receive because we ask with wrong motives. What about that description?

...well, if we want to talk about all the aspects of prayer and why they are/ aren't answer we can at another time. Trying to get back on topic (though, I am not sure I remember the thesis of this discussion ...lol

Look in the mirror. How do you make choices?

Well, my definition of FREE WILL differs from yours. I choose what I desire most at the time and always. But, this does not answer the question, what/who determined by desires.

You are leaving out character formed by a myriad of choices and then habits. Choices become habits. Habits become character. Character determines our destiny.

Agreed, and God exclusively determines habits that determine character that determine our destiny (example: depravity of man) .... one has to go to scripture to determine who is right.

Science is evidenced based, no proofs. Second, science cannot establish courage or honesty or patience or love. They are nevertheless there.

Agreed. God determines all things. Science depends on God to keep the properties of nature consistent so observations can be made and theories drawn.

You’re sweet. I can’t tell you how deeply exchanging with you blesses me. I am safe as you don’t stab!

Ah, thanks. I trust you too ... and if a 'stabbing' took place in know it was unintended. Excuse me if I accidentally characterize something you said, just set me straight.

Aside: Could you lend me $100? ....j/k
Aside2: I usually proof read... you wore me out ... pls excuse errors

 

[Fastfredy0]

I think you're pretending to be confused.

Well, if you don't trust my integrity it would be illogical to continue any correspondence. That's fine. Be true to your convictions.

In non-Calvinistic theology the sinner becomes responsible for his sin when he hears the testimony of the Spirit. He is not born/created responsible as Calvinism says.

Ah, not sure what you mean by "he hears the testimony of the Spirit". Do you have a scripture to support that theory and a definition of "he hears the testimony of the Spirit". I know you believe in inclusivism (correct me if I am wrong as Lord knows I wouldn't want to mischaracterize you and have a ToS thrown at me), so I guess the your definition of " the testimony of the Spirit" points to God's revealing Himself through nature as taught in Romans 1?
What matters is not what Calvinism teaches, it what the bible teaches and it only matters what Calvinism teaches if it properly reflect the bible (which I believe it does for the most part and which non-calvinism is not organized enough for me to properly reflect upon). So I refer you to Job 14:4; Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, John 3:6, Romans 3:23, Romans 5:12 to support the idea we are born in sin ...
Aside: Why am I not surprised you have not given scripture to substantiate your claims. This is problem with non-Calvinism in my opinion ... it's anthropocentric instead of theocentric, but again it is unorganized to the point that many of its followers depend upon their own interpretation base of days and days of careful study and absence the gift of teachers that God provides.

I'm pretty sure you understood that difference in what I was saying.

Well, if you don't trust my integrity it would be illogical to continue any correspondence. That's fine. Be true to your convictions.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Reconsidered ... error on side of safety.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I'm pretty sure I gave you a complete explanation. Twice, I think.

You know ... I am trying to be honest as to understanding you ... but I am going to have to stop before I am accused of breaking some ToS rule for not understanding you too many times or something ... sorry, I honestly tried.
Hmm... let me see if I can delete my posts.

God Bless

 

[hawkman]

Conviction is not regeneration. It's simply being convicted by God that the gospel is for real that you otherwise have no way of knowing is really true or not. It is from this place of informed revelation, when it happens, that a person can then receive and retain that truth into themselves in believing and be saved. Or not do that if that's what they want to do with it. The response to God's calling is our choice. But the when and how of God's calling belongs to him completely, and so we are all at his mercy in that regard.

My story . I sat through a few church services where I was convicted by the Holy Spirit, it is hard to put into word what it felt like , a deep burning in my body . So is conviction regeneration ? Not without making a commitment , it can't be .
Sure I became born again but not before being convicted by the Holy Spirit numerous times .
This help any Fastfredy0 ?

 

[hawkman]

Where does scripture say Adam's nature was changed? Did God tell Adam that his nature would be changed or that his nature was changed? Did he tell Cain that his nature was changed because of his father's sin? Where does it say that Adam had a before and after image of himself? Just wondering...

Good questions ! Did you get any answers ?

 

[Fastfredy0]

My story . I sat through a few church services where I was convicted by the Holy Spirit, it is hard to put into word what it felt like , a deep burning in my body . So is conviction regeneration ? Not without making a commitment , it can't be .
Sure I became born again but not before being convicted by the Holy Spirit numerous times .
This help any @Fastfredy0 ?

Lovely to hear your story.
This is a matter of semantics. No sense rehashing. He and I disagree. Not a biggy.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Where does scripture say Adam's nature was changed? Did God tell Adam that his nature would be changed or that his nature was changed? Did he tell Cain that his nature was changed because of his father's sin? Where does it say that Adam had a before and after image of himself? Just wondering...

Good questions ! Did you get any answers ?

Hmmm, I tried to respond to every query. Been so many. I'm getting dizzy.
Can't find an answer. Maybe I missed this one. Let's see ...
Aside 1: How come I'm the one that references scripture so often and others don't?
Aside 2: Aside 1 was a self-serving question ... *smile*
Background info:
Alright ... try this: https://www.gotquestions.org/spiritually-dead.html (spiritual death)
try: https://www.gotquestions.org/spiritual-life.html {for spiritual life)
... (aside: excellent site to answer questions. They're not Reformed, but they lean that way ...

...more direct answer to:

Where does scripture say Adam's nature was changed?

There are many aspects to one's nature. Adam is a creation and subject to change by definition.

Premise1: the penalty for sin is death. Death means separation.
Premise2: At one time Adam had not sinned. He was spiritually alive. He was not separated from God.
Premise3: At another time Adam had sinned. He was now spiritually dead, separated from God as demonstrated by his getting kicked out of Eden
Conclusion: Adam's nature was not subject to death until he sinned at which time he was subject to death ... Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— the cause of death is sin and death was imputed to all. (1 Cor. 15:22 For ads in Adam all die).
Note: Adam nature is now such that he is susceptible to disease, his now has a sin nature capable of lying, murder, etc.)

Premise 1: Sin is imputed to Adam's prodigy because Adam sinned
Premise 2: Sin would not have be imputed to Adam's prodigy had he not sin.
Conclusion: Adam's nature changed

Premise 1: God made the heavens and earth and man and said "It is good".
Premise 2: Adam nature had no flaws.
Premise 3: Adam sinned
Conclusion: Adam nature was perfect but was changed by his sin.

Definitions

Death ( means separation)
Physical death. Physical death is the separation of soul and body. It is represented in the Scriptures as a part of the penalty of sin.

Spiritual death. Spiritual death is the separation of the soul from God. The penalty proclaimed in Eden which has fallen upon the race is primarily this death of the soul (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:21; Ephesians 2:1,5). By it man lost the presence and favor of God as well as the knowledge of and desire for God. Because of this, he needs to be made alive from death (Luke 15:32; John 5:24; 8:51; Ephesians 2:5)

Eternal death. Eternal death is simply the culmination and completion of spiritual death. It is the eternal separation of the soul from God, together with the accompanying remorse and outward punishment (Matthew 10:28; 25:41; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Hebrews 10:31; Revelation14:11). This matter is examined more fully in our study of future things. Henry Thiessen – Lectures in Systematic Theology

The solution to Spiritual Death is regeneration which is to be 'Born Again". Born Again is an analogy. It manifests the fact that, just as we have no say in our natural birth, we have no say in our spiritual birth. Spiritually dead implies the same thing for the dead can do nothing to save themselves.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Aside: I must give up 'props' for giving a comprehensive answer to: How do you define FREE WILL. This is a rarity in my experience.

Trying not to lose context here so I am restating some previous discussion ...
Dorothy Mae said:
He [God] does not determine what you will choose.


The law of causality is one answer to "Why does it have to be someone else". I'll explain...

The law of causality definition:
Short answer: Every effect must have a cause

Where is this written in stone? Where do you see that the choices you make all have a cause and do you not then simply have an infinite regression until you land in the absurd or in other words, you lay the blame or "cause" on someone who had nothing to do with the end choice? I do not accept this as applying to self-determining agents.

Long answer:
Causality is a connection of phenomena through which one thing (the cause) under certain conditions gives rise to, causes something else (the effect). The first cause must be from a source that is eternal. God is the only eternal entity [and thus his being is causeless] and thus the ‘first cause’ of all things. Thus, the God is the cause of the human will, thus man’s will is not free; rather, it is designed by God. (Note: Mormons believe the earth and souls are eternal

God does not take the blame for the choices man makes. He rejects the "First Cause" theory in regards to man's free will choices and His part. This is a clever theory to blame God for sin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1BLR4rufYA ).
“God’s will is, and rightly ought to be, the cause of all things that are. For if it has any cause, something must precede it.” John Calvin

Where is this in scriptures? This is a clever way to accuse God of all sin and I will defend his character against such untruths. It does tell me the source of the man's theology though.

Now...if you can give me an example of something that was not caused (excluding God) then you would disprove the Law of Causality; otherwise my question to you still requires an answer:

Give me a choice that you make that has a causes and trace it back to God please. Each step needs to be a logical connection. The end result of "GOd made Adam so he is the cause of me behaving badly yesterday" will not work.

Aside: they (philosopher's, theologians) call is a Law because no one has found an exception. Now, we may not know all the causes of an effect like why that raindrop hit my forehead at 1 p.m. on a certain date, but we know there is a cause and logically I should know the First Cause of all things is God.

Please suggest another word beside law if you think that is the reason.

Agreed, God holds us responsible .... and then people say, "well if God holds me responsible then I must be FREE (self-determining) to make my chooses. Luckily (technically luck does not exist but I disgress) God answers this:
Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? [implying NO ONE DOES]
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
The verses say it is GODS WILL that drives things, we are held responsible, who you man to question this.

This is an incorrect assumption of the text. That is not what the Jewish author was thinking. God does not make serial killers and rapists and one cannot use this verse to accuse Him of such. Or is that your position. God makes all the evil people in human history to be evil? Step up to the plate and tell me please if this is what you want to think and say but this is the natural position you are taking. The understanding the author had was quite different from reading the rest of what he wrote but I need to keep this short.

______
Fastfredy0 said: Who determines your will?

You do. You got one at birth and you determine your own will, strong or weak, good or bad.

Where did your will come from?

At birth.

I think I covered this above. Again, I gave verses to support my contention and can give many more. You have not supported your opinion with scripture. This should have in questioning yourself IMO.

You gave a few in Romans and that it is. When Paul wrote about his own struggling with not doing what he wished he would do, how come he did not blame God as the potter who made him such? Do you know what He said? When Paul chastised the Corinthians, how come he did not conclude that God make them that way and so what can they do against the potter? How come when he wrote the Galatians he did not say that God had made them that way and so it is OK? How come he said in early Romans that those who did sexual practices were made by God to be that way and so it was ok because what can the clay do? I can go on and on from scripture about how wrong your position is, as comforting as that is to blame God for the sin we do.

____________
Oh, next you want me to give you verses to support the idea that God determines our will. Fine ..
Well, I just did Romans 9, I will continue ... (aside, I already gave several)
"For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? And His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" (Isaiah 14:27). Now, FREE WILL as you define it would say that man's will disannuls God's purpose or Free Will assumes God has no purpose in many things and it is up to you to decide where He has no purpose.

Only foolish modern Christians and now some atheists, insist there is no such thing as free will. It is so obvious that when Adam sinned and God blamed him for this, Adam had free will or the blame was unjust. Do I need to give you all the scriptures that lay blame for sin on the sinner? What about judgement and hell? If there is no free will, then there is no love, no hate, no just punishment for the clay that God made to do evil. God gave us a mind and did not write down in scripture everything that is obvious. He did to tell us to drink water or we will die and yet you drink water right? It is not in scripture so it is not necessary, right?

End of part 1

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Part 2

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else! I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure" (Isaiah 46:9-10). Now, FREE WILL as you define it would say that Man declares many (not all) things that occur; that God's counsel in many areas is left to man. Seems strange that an all-wise God would let his creation determine itself somehow to some degree. How could man randomly determine God's best plan.

Where is man's will addressed in this? Man does not have the ability to declare many things from the beginning to the end. Isn't that obvious? Why is it strange that God lets his creatures love if they choose to do so or not if they choose to do so? Why is that strange? Do you think that man can thwart the few plans God has set? They tried to kill Jesus at birth to thwart the plans of God and what did God do? Did he send angels to protect that little family? No, he had advance knowledge as he knows the thoughts of an and had them take a trip away from danger. Do you see how man cannot thwart the few plans of God in human interaction?

Aside:
Premise 1: Before the foundation of the world only God existed
Premise 2: From nothing, nothing comes (even God does not know what nothing will do, for then it would be something
Conclusion: It is NOT possible for God to declare the "end from the beginning" because his knowledge would be dependent upon the FREE WILL of men who do not as yet (in eternity past) exist. This also makes prophecy impossible.

Ah, you deeply underestimate the intellectual ability of God. Deeply. He is a lot smarter than you think He is.

Romans 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? 35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
Free Will as you define it answers God's questions. It is I who counsels God for it is I who self-determine what I will do in many regards. Free Will as you define it answers: I will determine to believe salvificly, and God... You are obligated to recompense me for what I have done. I know you have said in 1 Cor. 1:29 so that no one may boast before him. ... but I contend this is and exception as I, of my self-determined Free Will have overcome Adam's curse, though You have said "no one seeks me" I have determined from powers eminated from myself that I did seek and find you and should be rewarded accordingly.

What? How does our free will answer God's questions? I see no connection there. As to the second question, no man who believes and walks with God speaks to God that way. If you think you can overcome Adam's curse, which was weeds instead of food grow freely, be my guest. That was the curse, not sin.

Premise: God told man to seek Him
Premise: God knows man very well and does not demand what man cannot do
Conclusion: Man must have the ability to seek God

• Psalm 33:10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nought; He makes the thoughts and plans of the peoples of no effect. [puppets … our thoughts and plans are of NO EFFECT]

God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. The proud are the ones whom he brings plans to no effect at times. But is it your position that no plans of people are ever effective or that God is behind all the plans to do great evil to people? Are you accusing God of making the evil people do evil to others? Sounds like it.

• Psalm 33:15 He Who fashions the hearts of them all, Who considers all their doings.

No writer of the Bible blames God for the evil man does. There is one in the Bible who is called the Accuser of the righteous. Notice, by the way, that God is ONLY CONSIDERING the doing of man. IT does not say He is controlling them.

• Psalm 105:25 He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants.

Why? Do you know why?

• Psalm 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance, and in Your book all the days [of my life] were written before ever they took shape, when as yet there was none of them. [Your life is written (not recorded) by God, we follow His script and not our own … puppets]

How many days? Yes. What you would do with those days? No, certainly not.

• Proverbs 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps. If the Lord directs the steps of a man, is it not proof that he is being controlled or governed by God and therefore he is dependent on God for all things including FAITH?

No, because this does not apply to evil men for obvious reasons. This is what you want it to say so that you can blame God for the evil man does. I would to want to be in the shoes of them that accused God of evil in their lifetime.

• Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man’s mind, But it is the Lord’s purpose for him that will stand (be carried out). [puppets. It is God’s purpose that decides our fate]

It says God has purposes and they stand. What are those purposes? It does not say he decide our fate. We do that.

• Proverbs 20:24 A man’s steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way? [puppets … our steps are directed by God and not ourselves. We therefore cannot autonomously believe God]

No, an evil man's steps are not directed by the Lord. Do you know that the LORD punished Israel for unfaithfulness and more than once? Did God direct them to be unfaithful and then punish them? Is that the thinking you want to have of Him? I tell you, that this will have consequences in your life. No man can accuse God of moral evil and get away with it.

• Proverbs 21:1 The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it whichever way He wishes. [puppets .. God controls us.. His purpose (not ours) will be accomplished]

No, this is not what it is saying. Now you need to know that Proverbs is called wisdom literature not statements that are telling laws. Proverbs say if you raise a child in the ways of God they will not depart from that as adults but the world is full of children raised in christian homes who are solid atheists or even evil doers as adults. What happened? The answer is proverbs is what we would say, advise. They are NOT PROMISES.

I can go on a lot longer .. .hopefully this is sufficient
If you can give me verses saying we can self-determine (free from God) what we do that would be appreciated. The question is not whether or not we can choose for we both agree we can choose. I want verses saying one can choose and God will was not a factor.

I don't think I answer everything.... this is long winded enough. 2

Your paragraph is actually self refuting. We both agree we can choose but you say we have no free will and that means by definition we cannot choose. This is contradictory. Either we can freely choose or we cannot and God is the Master chess player and our choosing is a delusion. Which is it?

Every verses that says that we will suffer for the sin we do assume we have free will to do so and will stand before our Makes and give an account of those choices. Why do you need it spelled out?

Now I will say that I have encountered this blindness in reformed thinkers before. They feely make choices each day. They blame others when their choices are wrong or affect them negatively. I have never yet heard a reformed thinking demonstrate that they actually live their theology and say God is being all the wrong they do and others do and there is no reason to get angry because all that all do is God being the Potter. They actually get angry and here at non-calvinists and never say that God made those who do not agree with them like that and they peacefully accept it. You cannot live the theology you espouse, my friend.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Hmmm, I tried to respond to every query. Been so many. I'm getting dizzy.
Can't find an answer. Maybe I missed this one. Let's see ...
Aside 1: How come I'm the one that references scripture so often and others don't?

I weave scriptures into my text and also think about them and what they mean. I mean, you want a verse that says, "Thou hast free will" instead of "if you do XYZ, this bad will happen" which says that we have free will.

Aside 2: Aside 1 was a self-serving question ... *smile*

It was. And I am impressed you see that. You are rising in my estimation.

Background info:
Alright ... try this: https://www.gotquestions.org/spiritually-dead.html (spiritual death)
try: https://www.gotquestions.org/spiritual-life.html {for spiritual life)
... (aside: excellent site to answer questions. They're not Reformed, but they lean that way ...

...more direct answer to:

There are many aspects to one's nature. Adam is a creation and subject to change by definition.

Premise1: the penalty for sin is death. Death means separation.
Premise2: At one time Adam had not sinned. He was spiritually alive. He was not separated from God.
Premise3: At another time Adam had sinned. He was now spiritually dead, separated from God as demonstrated by his getting kicked out of Eden
Conclusion: Adam's nature was not subject to death until he sinned at which time he was subject to death ... Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— the cause of death is sin and death was imputed to all. (1 Cor. 15:22 For ads in Adam all die).
Note: Adam nature is now such that he is susceptible to disease, his now has a sin nature capable of lying, murder, etc.)

Adam still walked with God which means he was not separated from God. And GOd said he would die, not that he would be separated. I will quote scripture from memory for you. "in the day you eat of it you will die" not you will be separated.

Premise 1: Sin is imputed to Adam's prodigy because Adam sinned

That is no where in scripture. Says "Sin entered the world" does not say "sin entered Adam." Sin entered the world.

Premise 2: Sin would not have be imputed to Adam's prodigy had he not sin.

Since it is not anyway, "the soul who sins is the one who will die" the scripture says in more than one place, so we can dismiss this.

Conclusion: Adam's nature changed

No, all premises wrong and so conclusion wrong. God did not say Adam's nature had changed. Now we can decide it happened but my advise is to take God's view on the matter and not add to it.

Premise 1: God made the heavens and earth and man and said "It is good".
Premise 2: Adam nature had no flaws.
Premise 3: Adam sinned
Conclusion: Adam nature was perfect but was changed by his sin.

Please provide a scripture that says Adam was changed by his sin.

Definitions

Death ( means separation)
Physical death. Physical death is the separation of soul and body. It is represented in the Scriptures as a part of the penalty of sin.

Spiritual death. Spiritual death is the separation of the soul from God. The penalty proclaimed in Eden which has fallen upon the race is primarily this death of the soul (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:21; Ephesians 2:1,5). By it man lost the presence and favor of God as well as the knowledge of and desire for God. Because of this, he needs to be made alive from death (Luke 15:32; John 5:24; 8:51; Ephesians 2:5)

People have walked with God over the millennia so the conclusion that we are all separated from GOd is not true. All of the prophets of God walked with God and were not separated from Him. Cain even spoke to God face to face in a communion that few Christians find today. Cain was upset that he would be sent away from God. Hummmm (do you need the scripture for that or do you remember it?)

Eternal death. Eternal death is simply the culmination and completion of spiritual death. It is the eternal separation of the soul from God, together with the accompanying remorse and outward punishment (Matthew 10:28; 25:41; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Hebrews 10:31; Revelation14:11). This matter is examined more fully in our study of future things. Henry Thiessen – Lectures in Systematic Theology

The solution to Spiritual Death is regeneration which is to be 'Born Again". Born Again is an analogy.

So far so good and I agree.

It manifests the fact that, just as we have no say in our natural birth, we have no say in our spiritual birth. Spiritually dead implies the same thing for the dead can do nothing to save themselves.

No, clearly when Jesus told Nic that he needed to be born again, he was not saying that either he was lucky and chosen or unlucky and not chosen. When Jesus told people what they must do to be saved, he meant they needed to do it, not that God was doing it all for them. BTW, he said "born again" to exactly one man his entire ministry. It is only one analogy.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Good questions ! Did you get any answers ?

I haven't found it but that does not mean it is not there somewhere.