While it is clearly possible that God knows everything that happens in the future because he has ordered everything to happen exactly as he wants it to and in essence he is the direct cause of all actions including all sins, but that goes against the statements of God that it is not his will that people sin and that people act in rebellion to his will.
God foreknows and thus everything is predestined according to his foreknowledge. I see Calvinists insisting that everything is predestined because God makes everything to happen as it does, including the very sins that God condemns. That is eternally and internally inconsistent. If God says on the one hand that he hates a behaviour, then it cannot be said on the other hand that he has commanded that behaviour to take place. Adam was commanded to NOT eat the fruit. God did not cause him to eat the fruit. If God were being consistent, he did not want Adam to eat the fruit. But he did. God knew he would and both God and Man have dealt with the consequences.
xcept God is not a particle. The "object" which is traveling faster than a speed of light is part of God's creation -it does not have anything to do with the Creator. God is not subject to "quantum physics".
Marlowe, with all due respect, you are pulling this all out of your butt. You are making it up as you go.
It is pure speculation and you are subjecting Biblical interpretation to your speculative thinking.
"While it is clearly possible that God knows everything that happens in the future because he has ordered everything to happen exactly as he wants it to and in essence he is the direct cause of all actions including all sins, but that goes against the statements of God that it is not his will that people sin and that people act in rebellion to his will"
No, that does not go against his statements. It fits perfectly with Genesis 50:20 and Acts 2:23. On the other hand, it seems that this reality only contradicts your "Free-Will" Philosophical paradigm. I'm not concerned with your naturalistic philosophical speculations which you have yet to support with the Scriptures.
You must think of "both/and" rather than "either/or".
Let the Scriptures speak for themselves. One does not need quantum physics (which obviously do not apply to the creator of quantum physics) in order to understand Scripture -at last that seemed to be the case for 1900 some years.
"I see Calvinists insisting that everything is predestined because God makes everything to happen as it does, including the very sins that God condemns"
Only because that is what the Scriptures seem to be telling us. We need not rely on quantum physics which obviously don't apply to the creator of quantum physics or on philosophical speculation. We need only rest on Scripture.
The prophet Moses has told us with words that were inspired by the Holy Spirit that God proactively decreed/determined/foreordained (and not according to ~your~ re-definitions of those words) and brought to be all the events that brought Joseph into Egypt. And it was for good. AT THE SAME TIME (both/and) Joseph's brothers did evil by selling Joseph into Slavery. Both/And, Marlowe, not either/or.
Also, the apostle Luke has told us with words that were inspired by the Holy Spirit that all the events of Christ's Crucifixion were predetermined/foreordained/ordered/decreed (and not according to ~your~ re-definitions of those words) by God himself. And it was for good. AT THE SAME TIME (both/and) the Jewish leaders did evil by crucifying the Lord Jesus. They murdered him and it was sin which needed forgiveness. Both/And, Marlowe, not either/or.
"That is eternally and internally inconsistent."
It is inconsistent only with our limited naturalistic philosophical understanding. It is entirely consistent with what the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures have declared.
How come you keep wanting to point me in the direction of reason and philosophy and I keep pointing you to Scripture?
You are doing precisely what I have said -utilizing naturalistic philosophical reasoning as a hermeneutical tool.
Futhermore, you cannot say that it is eternally inconsistent because that would be subjecting the Sovereign God to limited philosophical reasoning. (again, we see the need to limit God's sovereignty in order for your speculations to be true).
"If God says on the one hand that he hates a behaviour, then it cannot be said on the other hand that he has commanded that behaviour to take place. Adam was commanded to NOT eat the fruit. God did not cause him to eat the fruit. If God were being consistent, he did not want Adam to eat the fruit. But he did. God knew he would and both God and Man have dealt with the consequences"
Again, all philosophical objections. When we are dealing with a non-created, infinite God, we limit ourselves if we subject him to limited naturalistic philosophical reasoning.
Jean