I didn’t suggest that every cause is an influence, I suggested the you mean to say that every influence is the cause of a corresponding action. I deny that meaning.
It is an influential effect, but that influence doesn’t necessarily mean that I act on it, but rather my own rationalizations and choices determine if I act on it. In the garden, the serpent said “Did God really say…” and then left it to the first couple to reason it out for themselves and choose who to believe.
I don't claim that all influences are acted upon. I wasn't talking about temptations, or advice, or whatever. I only meant they do influence, or they are not influences. If they influence, then they cause something. You are apparently only thinking of the one choice, but the mind has been influenced by that influence, or the body is tired by that influence, or the habit of sin is brought back up, and the spirit wears down.
I don’t think I said “semantics”,
I didn't mean that you had said it. I was just referring to the fact that Calvinists are so often accused of parsing words to make indistinguishable distinctions or such things. And now it was an anti-Calvinist doing it.
but human choice is not the effectual cause of necessity if God has preordained my choice.
Wrong. We've been through this before, but it's been awhile, so —consider the pervasiveness of cause-and-effect: Most believers (and, of course, non-believers) will readily admit, during most discussions, that what they decide is a result of many factors. Nobody argues whether it is them deciding—that's a given—but what they do think is that everyone decides according to whatever they most want at that moment of decision. Now, if that is true for the natural world, where nobody asks about the beginning of all chains of causation, why not accept that as true with God as that first cause? All the sudden we get squawking and cat calls and declarations of independence!
I don’t think so, but feel free to falsify my statement.
Lol, I'm too tired to go back and figure out what we were talking about.
Because if God decrees and thus determines that something necessarily must happen, then my choice is his choice, not solely my own.
Ah! NOW, we're getting somewhere. What makes you think that free will must necessarily mean your choices are SOLELY your own?
Again, it is a logical question to ask how I can be free to choose my own actions if God has predetermined all my choices as necessary. I am operating from the definition of free will.
You don't think God is above all this? Go all the way back to the meaning (as if we know) of "existence" itself. It derives from GOD, and EVERYTHING ELSE falls into place because existence does. That is to say, if existence is not of God, then you are free to claim all the self-determination you wish, and you'll hear no complaints from me. But this whole existence is of God, to him, from him, for him, about him, because of him, and for his sake. Do you somehow think you are independent from all this? Above it all?
I have not made the argument that it is “unjust” for God to cause the sinner to sin, but I do think it is contrary to his total character. I do think it is unjust to condemn people for something they have no ability to avoid doing, and this before they are even created, simply for one’s own pleasure or glory!
They do it willingly. Full participants in their sin. THEY choose it. They prefer it. They are inclined that way.
effect(s). 
