Is there a difference?

[GBC Pastor]

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

Thank you Skandelon. Luke has a tendency to skip over questions he doesn't have an answer for.

 

[BobinKy]

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."?

Adding the phrase "on earth as it is in heaven" does remove any doubt where we are praying God's will to be done.

...Bob

 

[thomas15]

Great thread. Sorry I missed it.
Tom

 

[Luke2427]

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?

It's not biblical.

Nor is it logical.

God CANNOT make a rock so big he cannot lift it.

God cannot make a square circle.

And God cannot create libertarian free will.

Choices have causes. Those causes shape choices.

Even the choices of God have causes that come from his own nature.

Choices have causes. Libertarian Free Will denies this plain fact.

 

[Luke2427]

Thank you Skandelon. Luke has a tendency to skip over questions he doesn't have an answer for.

I have answered it and it is not my tendency.

I generally speak to NUMEROUS people at once and sometimes miss posts.

If I do, pm me and I will respond.

But jumping to this insulting and baseless assumptive accusation is less than noble.

 

[Skandelon]

It's not biblical.

Nor is it logical.

God CANNOT make a rock so big he cannot lift it.

God cannot make a square circle.

And God cannot create libertarian free will.

You are committing the fallacy of begging the question by presuming your position that LFW is impossible, which is the very question up for debate. This is tantamount to saying "nu hu" to my well thought out and sound logical argument.

Choices have causes.

Yes they do. They are called choosers.

Even the choices of God have causes that come from his own nature.

Yep. And the Libertarian is arguing that God has made human being with a nature that can make free self-determined choices, as the OP proves.

Choices have causes. Libertarian Free Will denies this plain fact.

Not really, because LFW affirms that the agent is the cause, and that nothing impedes or hinders his choice from being otherwise.

What caused God to save you? Who made that determination? God did, right? That is a Libertarian free choice. Nothing made God choose to save you. He didn't have to save you. He chose to save you but nothing hindered him from choosing otherwise. Understand?

 

[Luke2427]

You are committing the fallacy of begging the question by presuming your position that LFW is impossible, which is the very question up for debate. This is tantamount to saying "nu hu" to my well thought out and sound logical argument.

No. It points out the obvious presupposition that God cannot do some things.

It is not at all similar to what you say because the rest of the post I prove why it is not possible.

It is a bit dumb to take a statement that is followed by proof and respond to the statement saying it doesn't prove anything.

Yes they do. They are called choosers.

This is ridiculous and it is indicative of the kind of smart alek mess that turns these debates sour. Choosers make choices for reasons.

The reasons that compel the "choosers" to choose what they choose are the causes behind those choices.

You can eat a hot dog or a hamburger. What you choose is truly up to you. But there will be a reason that you chose the one over the other. Follow that reason and it will be backed by a cause. Behind that cause will be a cause. And when you follow it all the way back to the beginning of time you will come to the First Cause, the Prime Mover of all things.

You follow this chain of causes back by asking the question, "Why?".

Why did you choose the hamburger?

Because I had a craving for burgers.

Why did you have a craving for burgers?

Because...... And in short order you will find that the reason you do the things you do is controlled by a force outside of yourself.

Libertarian Free Will ignores this plain fact.


Choices have causes because they exist in a universe governed by the law of Cause and Effect. God is the First Cause of all causes.

This is inescapable logic for anyone who is at all logical.

Furthermore it is clearly enunciated in Scripture.

Romans 11:36 "For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things."

Yep. And the Libertarian is arguing that God has made human being with a nature that can make free self-determined choices, as the OP proves.

Then he might as well argue that God made a rock so big he could not lift it.

Not really, because LFW affirms that the agent is the cause, and that nothing impedes or hinders his choice from being otherwise.

He is not the primary cause for his choices. This is so simple. I expect you should be able at this point to grasp this.

His choices have reasons. It does not take asking why many times to find out that those reasons or causes exist beyond the "chooser".

What caused God to save you? Who made that determination? God did, right? That is a Libertarian free choice. Nothing made God choose to save you. He didn't have to save you. He chose to save you but nothing hindered him from choosing otherwise. Understand?

God's perfect nature and omniscient brilliance and his righteous desire to manifest the glory of his grace caused him to save me. His choice had a basis.

Understand?

 

[Skandelon]

Luke, with all due respect and brotherly love you really need to drop the patronizing comments such as, "it is a bit dumb," "this is ridiculous...smart alek", "this is inescapable logic for anyone who is at all logical,"..."This is so simple. I expect you should be able at this point to grasp this." etc etc

I competed in debate and logic in both high school and college, I've discussed these matters for decades with very knowledgable people and I've read countless books discussing these subjects in much depth, so I'm well aware of what is typically argued and the expected demeanor of those who engage each other on such matters. By saying this I'm not attempting to claim I'm smarter or better in any way, but only to establish that I am well aware of content matter, a proper logical construct, and the appropriate manner of response to such arguments. Your response is demeaning, patronizing and honestly lacks any substance whatsoever. I can put up with patronization from someone who has strong logical intelligent arguments to back it up, but dismissing my proof as the same as "can God create a rock too big for him to lift," is unfounded and itself a fallacy of logic.

Unless you can draw a link in how my proof (which has still gone unaddressed) is parallel to the argument that "God is able to create a rock too big for him to lift," then this is just a simple diversion. Why? Because I've never attempted to make that argument and honestly I don't agree with the idea that God can do "anything." I just don't see any reason to believe God cannot create mankind with the ability of self-determiniation (LFW), as my proof in the OP shows.

It is not at all similar to what you say because the rest of the post I prove why it is not possible.

It is a bit dumb to take a statement that is followed by proof and respond to the statement saying it doesn't prove anything.

You didn't provide a proof of any kind. You simply made statements like 'choices have causes,' to which I explained that LFW doesn't deny because it does affirm that the agent is the ultimate cause of his choice. To which you respond by saying...

This is ridiculous and it is indicative of the kind of smart alek mess that turns these debates sour. Choosers make choices for reasons.

Is that necessary?

I'm attempting to have an honest discussion with you about a very complex and highly debated matter that has been repeatedly discussed for generations. Can we do that without the ad homenium?

The reasons that compel the "choosers" to choose what they choose are the causes behind those choices. You can eat a hot dog or a hamburger. What you choose is truly up to you. But there will be a reason that you chose the one over the other...

I understand your position. I used to believe it. But just restating it over and over is not an argument. It's is called "begging the question." See below for example...you write:

Because...... And in short order you will find that the reason you do the things you do is controlled by a force outside of yourself.

Libertarian Free Will ignores this plain fact.

What you must realize is that the drive to explain a truly free choice in this manner is really just a game of question begging because it assumes that a deterministic explanation is required. Ciocchi, who debated Feinberg, put it this way:

"the choice between available options is what free will is all about . . ., and it is finally mysterious, beyond full explanation, for full explanations presuppose the very determinism the libertarian rejects" (Ciocchi, p. 94).

So, its not that non-Calvinists are arguing that their is NO reasons or causes for the morally free choices, we just believe that the chooser determines the choice, the actor determines the act. There are things outside the agent that influence and affect his will, but in order for it to be considered free (and thus morally accountable) the choice itself must not be determined by an outside force. This is called "self-determination" or more commonly referred to as "free will."

Now, I've provided a logical construct or a proof in the OP supporting my premise. You have simply provided restatements of your premise...the one that is up for debate.

Choices have causes because they exist in a universe governed by the law of Cause and Effect. God is the First Cause of all causes.

This is inescapable logic for anyone who is at all logical.

Ok, then prove it. Provide a logical argument and back it up with support. Stop just restating what you believe as if its an established fact.

Furthermore it is clearly enunciated in Scripture.

Romans 11:36 "For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things."

This verse is much to vague to attempt to attach the basis for your entire logical construct. After all, if God DID choose to give mankind LFW then that would include the "all things" which come from Him and through Him, now wouldn't it?

He is not the primary cause for his choices.

Do you believe that God is the primary cause for his choices, or not?

God's perfect nature and omniscient brilliance and his righteous desire to manifest the glory of his grace caused him to save me. His choice had a basis.

And since, according to your own logic, all things must have a cause...what caused God's nature/brilliance/desire to be such that He would choose you?

 

[Skandelon]

When I referred to the proof of the OP, I was meaning the proof on the other thread where this subject is being discussed. I got the two threads confused:

http://baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=69956

 

[Luke2427]

Your response is demeaning, patronizing and honestly lacks any substance whatsoever. I can put up with patronization from someone who has strong logical intelligent arguments to back it up, but dismissing my proof as the same as "can God create a rock too big for him to lift," is unfounded and itself a fallacy of logic.

Skandelon, I am neither unintelligent nor a weak debater. You may question my zeal and aggression but it is less than honest to question my ability.

You didn't provide a proof of any kind. You simply made statements like 'choices have causes,' to which I explained that LFW doesn't deny because it does affirm that the agent is the ultimate cause of his choice. To which you respond by saying...

It is the law of Cause and Effect. That is the proof. I provided it. You ignored it.

Your Libertarian Free Will denies that choices have causes. Saying that the ultimate cause is the chooser ignores the fact that the chooser himself is an effect. All of the factors that drive him to choose what he chooses- emotional, intellectual, physical, spiritual, etc...- all of them are themselves effects which have causes.

If you do not deny the cosmological argument for God's existence then you have to accept the fact that there is a Prime Mover who is the First and Ultimate cause of all causes. That includes those effects which have causes which shape the choices men make.

I'm attempting to have an honest discussion with you about a very complex and highly debated matter that has been repeatedly discussed for generations. Can we do that without the ad homenium?

Respect must be mutual.

"the choice between available options is what free will is all about . . ., and it is finally mysterious, beyond full explanation, for full explanations presuppose the very determinism the libertarian rejects" (Ciocchi, p. 94).

Which is like saying- we reject it so it isn't true.

So, its not that non-Calvinists are arguing that their is NO reasons or causes for the morally free choices, we just believe that the chooser determines the choice, the actor determines the act.

Doesn't go back far enough. It ignores the fact that the universe was built and dsigned purposefully exactly as it was by a First Cause and Prime Mover who planned, began and controls the chain of events since he began the universe- a universe which he chose to be governed by a scientific law called- Cause and Effect.

There are things outside the agent that influence and affect his will, but in order for it to be considered free (and thus morally accountable) the choice itself must not be determined by an outside force. This is called "self-determination" or more commonly referred to as "free will."

And since, according to your own logic, all things must have a cause...what caused God's nature/brilliance/desire to be such that He would choose you?

This is a common atheistic argument against the existence of God. You know why God nor his attributes have no cause.

He is the uncaused Cause. He is the unmoved mover.

And it is not that ALL THINGS have causes. It is that all effects have causes. God is not an effect. He and his attributes are eternal.

He is the being that instituted the Law of Cause and Effect.

 

[Skandelon]

It is the law of Cause and Effect. That is the proof. I provided it. You ignored it.

But that so called "law" in regard to mankind being created by God to be the ultimate cause of his own choices is the very point up for debate, so to simply assume your premise is the fallacy of question begging.

Your Libertarian Free Will denies that choices have causes.

No it doesn't. It claims (as you do regarding God's choices) that the agent himself (which would include his nature and all his attributes) is the ultimate cause of his choices.

Saying that the ultimate cause is the chooser ignores the fact that the chooser himself is an effect.

Not if God created him with the ability to make first cause choices...

If you do not deny the cosmological argument for God's existence then you have to accept the fact that there is a Prime Mover who is the First and Ultimate cause of all causes.

Agreed. And God would be the ULTIMATE cause of the a world full of free moral agents who has the ability to make self-determined (LFW) choices, but that in no way even suggests He must be the one who causes/determines all other agents choices.

Which is like saying- we reject it so it isn't true.

No, its like saying, deal with the logical proof I provide here, instead of presuming that continually restating your "laws" is sufficient to prove your case.

Doesn't go back far enough. It ignores the fact that the universe was built and dsigned purposefully exactly as it was by a First Cause and Prime Mover who planned

And this ignores the possibility of a creator who planned to create free moral agents who could choose to love him or reject him and be held responsible for those choices.

He is the uncaused Cause. He is the unmoved mover.

And it is not that ALL THINGS have causes. It is that all effects have causes. God is not an effect. He and his attributes are eternal.

Good, whether you are willing to admit it or not you have just affirmed the existence of LFW in God. Now we have established its existence is possible, the only thing left is to explore the possibility of it being duplicated by an omnipotent God.

 

[quantumfaith]

But that so called "law" in regard to mankind being created by God to be the ultimate cause of his own choices is the very point up for debate, so to simply assume your premise is the fallacy of question begging.

No it doesn't. It claims (as you do regarding God's choices) that the agent himself (which would include his nature and all his attributes) is the ultimate cause of his choices.

Not if God created him with the ability to make first cause choices...


Agreed. And God would be the ULTIMATE cause of the a world full of free moral agents who has the ability to make self-determined (LFW) choices, but that in no way even suggests He must be the one who causes/determines all other agents choices.

No, its like saying, deal with the logical proof I provide here, instead of presuming that continually restating your "laws" is sufficient to prove your case.

And this ignores the possibility of a creator who planned to create free moral agents who could choose to love him or reject him and be held responsible for those choices.



Good, whether you are willing to admit it or not you have just affirmed the existence of LFW in God. Now we have established its existence is possible, the only thing left is to explore the possibility of it being duplicated by an omnipotent God.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Luke2427]

But that so called "law" in regard to mankind being created by God to be the ultimate cause of his own choices is the very point up for debate, so to simply assume your premise is the fallacy of question begging.

To presuppose the law of Cause and Effect is necessary for any logical discussion.

No it doesn't. It claims (as you do regarding God's choices) that the agent himself (which would include his nature and all his attributes) is the ultimate cause of his choices.

Only the First Cause can be the ultimate cause of anything.

All causes must trace their origins back to the first cause.

Something caused everything. God is the Cause. He caused EVERYTHING.

Not if God created him with the ability to make first cause choices...

It is not possible because God designed the universe so that all thing including choices have causes and all causes can trace their origins back to the First Cause.

Agreed. And God would be the ULTIMATE cause of the a world full of free moral agents who has the ability to make self-determined (LFW) choices, but that in no way even suggests He must be the one who causes/determines all other agents choices.

No. God who by definition is the Ultimate Cause and Prime Mover cannot create other Ultimate Causes and Prime Movers.

All things can be traced back to the origin of all things. This happened today because that happened yesterday. That happened yesterday because of those things which happened the day before. You can follow those things back to the beginning and Beginner of time.

No, its like saying, deal with the logical proof I provide here, instead of presuming that continually restating your "laws" is sufficient to prove your case.

Logic demands the law of cause and effect. If this law does not exist then NOTHING can be established with even the remotest certainty.

Everyone is a presuppositionalist when it comes right down to it.

And this ignores the possibility of a creator who planned to create free moral agents who could choose to love him or reject him and be held responsible for those choices.

No, it doesn't.

Good, whether you are willing to admit it or not you have just affirmed the existence of LFW in God. Now we have established its existence is possible, the only thing left is to explore the possibility of it being duplicated by an omnipotent God.

No, I haven't.

LFW ignores the fact that choices have causes.

God cannot do one thing just as well as the other. He does whatever he PLEASES. Being God that means that when making decisions, as it were, he will always, every time do what is highest and noblest.

LFW says he could possibly choose the lesser of two- not possible. God always does as he PLEASES. What pleases Him, being God, is that which is highest and holiest.

 

[Skandelon]

To presuppose the law of Cause and Effect is necessary for any logical discussion.

And the fact that I've actually affirmed the law of cause and effect in that I have argued from the beginning that God caused mankind to have LFW and thus we are the first cause of our choices has somehow escaped your understanding because you just keep repeating yourself.

Only the First Cause can be the ultimate cause of anything.

All causes must trace their origins back to the first cause.

Something caused everything. God is the Cause. He caused EVERYTHING.

Again, we are not in disagreement on these points, but as I've just pointed out. Our premise is not to deny causation or these points you keep repeating. Our premise is to argue that God caused LFW, so he is the ultimate cause of mankind having LFW. This doesn't violate your law or any of these points.

It is not possible because God designed the universe so that all thing including choices have causes and all causes can trace their origins back to the First Cause.

That is tauntamont to saying "that's not possible because I don't believe its possible." Again QUESTION BEGGING. Why don't you deal with the proof I presented regarding 1 Cor 10:13? Explain how that prove is invalid if this is such a easy thing to refute.

No. God who by definition is the Ultimate Cause and Prime Mover cannot create other Ultimate Causes and Prime Movers.

Because Luke says he can't? God can't give rule or dominion to another creature? He can't create someone in his own image who has the ability of self-determination? Says who?

No, I haven't.

Yes, you have. Two can play this game.

LFW ignores the fact that choices have causes.

No it doesn't.
Wow, this debate strategy is much easier. I should have been doing this all along. I just have to keep saying you're wrong and I'm right and restating my position over and over without providing any arguments or support.

God cannot do one thing just as well as the other. He does whatever he PLEASES. Being God that means that when making decisions, as it were, he will always, every time do what is highest and noblest.

And who determines what is the "hightest and noblest?" No matter how many times you try to answer this I can continue to ask an infinite number of questions about what determined God's choice to save you and the only possible answer ends up being "God." God determines his own choices, period, which is the very heart of LFW whether or not you accept that or not. The actor determines his act. The chooser determines his choice. The determiner determines his determinations. Just like God determined to save you. Nothing outside of God can be credited for that decision, otherwise, whatever that thing is must be higher than God.

LFW says he could possibly choose the lesser of two- not possible. God always does as he PLEASES. What pleases Him, being God, is that which is highest and holiest.

And just who do you think determines that which is highest and holiest? Is there another God out there telling our God what is the better of the two options? Of course not. God determined what is best. He made the choice. That is LFW, whether you accept it or not.

 

[GBC Pastor]

No it doesn't.
Wow, this debate strategy is much easier. I should have been doing this all along. I just have to keep saying you're wrong and I'm right and restating my position over and over without providing any arguments or support.

That might just be the funniest thing I have read in my entire time on BB yet! You've hit the nail on the head here concerning Bro. Luke.

But I do have a question about what you said here:

So, its not that non-Calvinists are arguing that their is NO reasons or causes for the morally free choices, we just believe that the chooser determines the choice, the actor determines the act. There are things outside the agent that influence and affect his will, but in order for it to be considered free (and thus morally accountable) the choice itself must not be determined by an outside force. This is called "self-determination" or more commonly referred to as "free will."

How in a practical sense would you differentiate between influences affecting the will of the chooser and influences actually causing the choice?

 

[webdog]

Skandelon, I am neither unintelligent nor a weak debater. You may question my zeal and aggression but it is less than honest to question my ability.

Oh...he was completely honest in questioning your ability, and true to form you resorted to attacking his inteligence, your "MO" when backed into a corner. Fact is, you had your theological book handed to you by someone who is a lot more patient (and educated) with your antics than I am

 

[Skandelon]

Previously I wrote: So, its not that non-Calvinists are arguing that their is NO reasons or causes for the morally free choices, we just believe that the chooser determines the choice, the actor determines the act. There are things outside the agent that influence and affect his will, but in order for it to be considered free (and thus morally accountable) the choice itself must not be determined by an outside force. This is called "self-determination" or more commonly referred to as "free will."

How in a practical sense would you differentiate between influences affecting the will of the chooser and influences actually causing the choice?

I need to lose about 10 lbs after the holidays. My wife encourages me to eat well. But I love sweets. I'm presented with to opportunity to have a piece of cake but my wife influences me by reminding me of my need to diet. My appetite for sweets and the appeal of the cake also influences me in the opposing direction. Now does my wife make the determination? Does the cake, or its appeal, make the determination? NO. I do. Those other factors (along with many other unmeasurable factors) influence me, but I'm the determining agent.

Suppose I resisted the cake in this circumstance. If someone claims that my wife determined that choice, then she would be the determiner, but she is not. I am. She is just an influential factor.

Now, suppose that my wife slipped a drug in my coffee earlier that day that would cause me to always agree with her. Now, she is more than an influence, she is a cause or determinative factor in my choice because she made it so that I could not do otherwise.

See the difference?

 

[Amy.G]

Now, suppose that my wife slipped a drug in my coffee earlier that day that would cause me to always agree with her.

Where can I buy some of that? :saint:

 

[Skandelon]

Where can I buy some of that? :saint:

You can buy that at "The Reformed Wives Club of Compatabilistic Control Over Husbands." Or TRWCCCOH for short. :thumbs:

 

[Amy.G]

You can buy that at "The Reformed Wives Club of Compatabilistic Control Over Husbands." Or TRWCCCOH for short. :thumbs:

:laugh: Thanks! I'm placing my order now!