Is there a difference?

[Luke2427]

Skandelon, is this not compatibilism?

Not "first-cause" choices.

 

[quantumfaith]

Not "first-cause" choices.

What is the complete definition of "first cause" choices?

 

[Luke2427]

What is the complete definition of "first cause" choices?

The First Cause Argument

The first cause argument (or “cosmological argument”) takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it. It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe.

The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.

If we trace this series of events back in time, then what do we find? There seem, at first glance, to be two possibilities: either we eventually reach the first event in the series, the cause at the beginning of the universe that set everything going, or there is no first event in the series and the past stretches back into infinity.

The first cause argument tells us that the second of these is not possible, that the past cannot stretch back into infinity but rather must have a beginning. The argument then proceeds by suggesting that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence.

This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God.

This is significant because Arminians and these far less consistent, mysterious "non-reformed" people must have choices independent from this series of causes- which is a ridiculous logical fallacy. It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE and totally unbiblical.

Britannica defines it this way:

first cause, in philosophy, the self-created being (i.e., God) to which every chain of causes must ultimately go back. The term was used by Greek thinkers and became an underlying assumption in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Many philosophers and theologians in this tradition have formulated an argument for the existence of God by claiming that the world that man observes with his senses must have been brought into being by God as the first cause. The classic Christian formulation of this argument came from the medieval theologian St. Thomas Aquinas, who was influenced by the thought of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aquinas argued that the observable order of causation is not self-explanatory. It can only be accounted for by the existence of a first cause; this first cause, however, must not be considered simply as the first in a series of continuing causes, but rather as first cause in the sense of being the cause for the whole series of observable causes.

Notice the bolded statement. This is what you willfully deny when you demand that God is not the cause of all things.

 

[GBC Pastor]

Remember that Jesus does indeed gather many of Jerusalem's literal children under his wings in just a few months.

Children refer to future generations of Israel. The nation would soon experience hell and would do so for centuries to come.

But Jesus isn't speaking in the future tense. He is speaking in the past tense.

This is what you willfully deny when you demand that God is not the cause of all things.

If God is the cause of our having free will, which I don't believe any non-Cal would deny, then how does this dispute the claim of God being the "first cause?"

 

[Luke2427]

But Jesus isn't speaking in the future tense. He is speaking in the past tense.




If God is the cause of our having free will, which I don't believe any non-Cal would deny, then how does this dispute the claim of God being the "first cause?"

Let me put it to you this way. Bagdad, Bagdad! How many times would we have allowed your children and children's children to partake of your ancient culture had you allowed us to inspect those weapons of yours- but you would NOT!

A reference to children refers to the future.

Jerusalem, how many times would I settled the matter with you and continued to be with future generations! How MANY times would I have turned away my wrath and not turned from you and your children to the Gentiles! But you would not! By your past and continual national stubbornness you have forfeited my protective hand on your children (future generations).

Remember, if this is talking about individual salvation of souls then it is meaningless because Jesus will save nearly a quarter of the population of Jerusalem WITHIN THE YEAR!!

No, Jerusalem refers to national Israel and her being forsaken for the Gentile nations as we all agree happened within DAYS of Jesus speaking those words.

 

[GBC Pastor]

Ok...well first of all it's Baghdad...

Second...

A reference to children refers to the future.

this is just bogus...

Jesus said specifically how He wanted (past tense) to gather the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the past...in fact he says "how often" meaning this is something the Lord had desired to do on more than one occasion...yet their unwillingness had prevented the Lord from fulfilling His desire for Israel...the reference to children is not tied in anyway that I can see to the future...it seems pretty clearly tied to the past.

 

[GBC Pastor]

Remember, if this is talking about individual salvation of souls then it is meaningless because Jesus will save nearly a quarter of the population of Jerusalem WITHIN THE YEAR!!

This doesn't change anything...Jesus' is still lamenting what could have been for past generations of Israel had they only been willing...

 

[Luke2427]

Ok...well first of all it's Baghdad...

Second... this is just bogus...

Jesus said specifically how He wanted (past tense) to gather the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the past...in fact he says "how often" meaning this is something the Lord had desired to do on more than one occasion...yet their unwillingness had prevented the Lord from fulfilling His desire for Israel...the reference to children is not tied in anyway that I can see to the future...it seems pretty clearly tied to the past.

No. You are wrong. But I can not say it any clearer.

Why wouldn't Jesus just say, "How many times would I have gathered YOU?"

 

[GBC Pastor]

Why wouldn't Jesus just say, "How many times would I have gathered YOU?"

Because He is speaking collectively of the inhabitants of Israel in times past...but that collective is made up of individual people

 

[Luke2427]

Because He is speaking collectively of the inhabitants of Israel in times past...but that collective is made up of individual people

No. Why did he SAY "your children" rather than YOU?

 

[GBC Pastor]

No. Why did he SAY "your children" rather than YOU?

I thought I just answered this...

Jesus said your children because He is referring to the inhabitants of Jerusalem...Just like I could be called a "son of Texas." Texas did not actually birth me, but it is my native land.

 

[Luke2427]

I thought I just answered this...

Jesus said your children because He is referring to the inhabitants of Jerusalem...Just like I could be called a "son of Texas." Texas did not actually birth me, but it is my native land.

How many times would I gathered Jerusalem as a nation under my wings but she would not- even if you are right, which you are not, but even if you are it is STILL national not soteriological.

 

[Luke2427]

This doesn't change anything...Jesus' is still lamenting what could have been for past generations of Israel had they only been willing...

Yess, their stubbornness in the past and up to the present which is going to cost their future generations nationally- greatly.

 

[GBC Pastor]

Yess, their stubbornness in the past and up to the present which is going to cost their future generations nationally- greatly.

So then this seems to be a clear case where our Lord expresses His will for Israel in its past, and that the desires God had for Israel had been thwarted on more than one occasion by Israel's unwilingness.

 

[Luke2427]

So then this seems to be a clear case where our Lord expresses His will for Israel in its past, and that the desires God had for Israel had been thwarted on more than one occasion by Israel's unwilingness.

God can be willing that something that he does not like exist for the time being for the greater good.

I do this in raising my son. He, I think, is touched with ADD. He has a hard time focusing.

To help him to see his problem and work on it I give him assignments that I know he cannot yet do in a certain amount of time. I wish that he could. I am not happy that he can't. I tell him, if you get this done in twenty minutes I will not make you do the next sheet. I actually want him to do the next sheet because he needs the practice focusing.

But I'd be even happier if he could do the first sheet in twenty minutes. But I know he can't.

It is my ultimate will that he do the second sheet. But I WOULD let him do only the first if he WOULD but focus hard and get it done.

If I can will things that way- certainly Almighty God can.

 

[Skandelon]

How many times would I gathered Jerusalem as a nation under my wings but she would not- even if you are right, which you are not, but even if you are it is STILL national not soteriological.

Remember that nations are made up of individuals (something Calvinists are quick to remember when discussingRomans 9). At lease ONE INDIVIDUAL within that nation had to be unwilling for the nation as a whole to be unwilling, right? Surely you are not suggesting that the nation was unwilling while the individuals who made up that nation where, are you?

The fact of the matter is that God continually expresses his desire for obedience, faith and worship.

1. He express frustration when people choose to disobey, which makes little sense in a system where he is the one who must make them obey.

2. He expresses disappointment and even rebukes those with little or no faith, yet that makes no sense in a system where the faith is supplied effectually by Him. Why rebuke man and not God for giving them too little faith?

3. He SEEKS those who worship him, which make no sense in a system where he makes people worship him. Why have the rocks crying out as a back up plan in a system where the people are virtually just rocks being made to worship already?

 

[Skandelon]

If God is the cause of our having free will, which I don't believe any non-Cal would deny, then how does this dispute the claim of God being the "first cause?"

I didn't see the Pastor's question answered and I think it merits a response with regard to our discussion.

Luke, you seem to be arguing that it is impossible for God to have created beings with libertarian freedom (or as I put it earlier, "the ability to make first cause choices.") But aren't you just begging the question?

How can anyone have the audacity to presume what God is not capable of doing simply because it doesn't fit your man made logical constructs, the very construct that is up for debate?

And please don't give me the "its not biblical" line. There are PLENTY of passages that speak of God's relenting, changing his mind, reacting to man's choices and responding within time and space. Dismiss them all as anthropomorphic all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the writers of scripture didn't see the need to provide such explanations, thus clearly didn't feel it necessary to qualify such revelations about God in order to prevent people from "believing God actually responds and reacts to man," so why should you?

 

[freeatlast]

I have been working on a sermon on the Lord's Prayer for our Day of Prayer service this Sunday. A thought occured to me as I have been reading this passage in Matthew the last few days. The verse that got me to thinking was Matthew 6:10, "Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." (NKJV)

Does this not at least suggest that a distinction is being made between God's will in heaven vs. His will on the earth? If God's will is absolutely always fulfilled as many here claim then wouldn't Jesus have told us to simply pray, "Your kingdom come, Your will be done."?

You got it! :thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

Remember that nations are made up of individuals (something Calvinists are quick to remember when discussingRomans 9). At lease ONE INDIVIDUAL within that nation had to be unwilling for the nation as a whole to be unwilling, right? Surely you are not suggesting that the nation was unwilling while the individuals who made up that nation where, are you?

The fact of the matter is that God continually expresses his desire for obedience, faith and worship.

1. He express frustration when people choose to disobey, which makes little sense in a system where he is the one who must make them obey.

2. He expresses disappointment and even rebukes those with little or no faith, yet that makes no sense in a system where the faith is supplied effectually by Him. Why rebuke man and not God for giving them too little faith?

3. He SEEKS those who worship him, which make no sense in a system where he makes people worship him. Why have the rocks crying out as a back up plan in a system where the people are virtually just rocks being made to worship already?

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

I didn't see the Pastor's question answered and I think it merits a response with regard to our discussion.

Luke, you seem to be arguing that it is impossible for God to have created beings with libertarian freedom (or as I put it earlier, "the ability to make first cause choices.") But aren't you just begging the question?

How can anyone have the audacity to presume what God is not capable of doing simply because it doesn't fit your man made logical constructs, the very construct that is up for debate?

And please don't give me the "its not biblical" line. There are PLENTY of passages that speak of God's relenting, changing his mind, reacting to man's choices and responding within time and space. Dismiss them all as anthropomorphic all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the writers of scripture didn't see the need to provide such explanations, thus clearly didn't feel it necessary to qualify such revelations about God in order to prevent people from "believing God actually responds and reacts to man," so why should you?[/QUOTE]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: