Featured Could God impart independency

I agree, this is a quandary, so why not appeal to mystery rather than theorize a system by which God is causing the desires of Dahmers to molest, Hitlers to build gas chambers, and Osamas to blow up buildings?

Additionally, I think your question actually needs to go one step deeper. Can men choose to act or refrain from acting in accordance with their various competing desires? If you desire to lie to me right now, don't you as a believer, one able to resist temptation, have the ability to refrain or not refrain from that sinful action? If yes, then you affirm contra-causal choice. If no, I suspect that you have contradicted Paul's teaching to the Corinthians which tells that God will never allow us to be tempted beyond what we can resist.

 

OK, but that view is not compatibalism as the greatest desire is not chosen but a desire based on circumstance. Welcome to contra causal free will

 

I thought John 3 was speaking of, any man, the flesh and the Spirit.

Man who has been born of the flesh, that same man must be born of the Spirit.

Don't think I am wrong but guess I could be.

 

This sentence cannot be overstated. If people can just come to understand this basic truth of the text it really helps bring clarity to so many other issues.

Asking for forgiveness doesn't merit being forgiven. Even those who beg to be forgiven in complete humility deserve HELL. It's only because God chooses to give grace to the humble that those who are humble get saved. They aren't EARNING or MERITING ANYTHING!!!

 

That's right. If the agent is choosing which desire to act upon then that is an example of Contra-Causal choice. The desire isn't determining the choice, the agent is determining which desire he will fulfill by choosing his action. He is able to refrain or not refrain from any given moral action. That is what separates him from instinctive animals who merely respond based on inborn set reflexes to fulfill a given predetermined inborn desire.

 

Yes! Also noticeably absent from the choice is the nature. If you place lettuce and a zebra before a lion, what will he choose? He'll choose Mrs. Lion walking by who is in heat. Circumstances.

 

This "fundemental truth" is really the most grevious error that undergirds Arminianism. It is unbiblical on so many different levels. It is the very antithesis of what the scriptures teach from cover to cover.

1. There is no inherent goodness (agathos) in fallen man if God is judge what is good.

2. The fundemental issue of the fallen nature is the wrong motive for living which is self-centered and thus the very root of evil as it robs all glory from God.

3. Fallen man is only "good" in the Bible by RELATIVE comparison with other fallen men.

The account of the rich young ruler so condemns and exposes this "fundemental truth" as absolute false doctrine.

 

Bingo!!!! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

That ain't more heterosexual male going that wouldn't do that, imo. But that shows the lion choosing his greatest desire. So again, the lion chose his greatest desire.....

 

Can a man have desires "ABOUT" his desires?....
Can he DESIRE that his natural or normative "DESIRES" be other than what they presently are?

If so....
Can his desiring that his desires be something other than what they are effect them?

If he always truly MOST GREATLY desires to do what you are defining his "greatest desires" to be....then, wouldn't it be absurd to think that he could or would at all be capable of desiring that his desires were other than they are?

After all if he already chooses his greatest desires, then it is absurd to think that he might wish that the thing he TRULY wants most is other than what it is right? That would mean that he at least desires to desire something that he wants less than what he actually desires most....:wavey:

What about possible decisions which have no identifiable desire-based referent whatsoever? Is the chooser then paralyzed?

Buridan's Ass?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass

Convicted....I know all of those compatibilist explanations sound really cool and sophisticated, but, I assure you there are counters for every one of them. I know that Compatibilism sounds quite intuitive too, inasmuch as it is hard to imagine decisions with absolutely NO desire-based referent...

But, what actual PROOF do you really have that that is ALL there is involved in decision-making? Sure, it's a powerful force. Granted it's rare that what appears to be your highest natural motive doesn't greatly effect it.......so what?

Does that prove that that is all there is?
Let's boil this down:
Can or do you have desires about what you wish you desire most?

If so, then isn't it illogical that you could even imagine "wanting" to "want" something other than what you apparently claim to "want" most?

I can provide AT LEAST one Scripture which, taken at face value, says (not implies)...SAYS that you can DO something you don't WANT to do...and conversely that you can WANT TO DO something that you don't actually DO...
Here it is:
Rom 7:15
For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16
If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

We can debate it's deeper signifigance all you want:
But please submit even ONE VERSE which says that all choices are based ONLY and SOLELY upon one's present greatest desire....Just one. You are simply assuming it is true.

 

Brother IJ, I will give you biblical accounts and not just verses to prove my point, so please be patient with me.

Noah, who preached the those who would die in the flood. He warned them and yet they did not heed to his words. They chose to die in the flood and not to believe his words.

Lot, when he warned his family of the impending doom that was coming to Sodom and Gomorrah. They chose to not obey his words and they perished in the fire.

Jonah, who disobeyed God's command to go and preach in Ninevah. After he was in the whale's belly, he repented and chose to obey God.

David, who sinned in sleeping with Bathsheba and having Uriah killed. He chose his greatest desire at that time, and that was to please himself with Bathsheba. Then he had Uriah killed in an attempt to conceal that Bathsheba's baby was his. He chose his greatest desire to not get caught.

And in Romans 7, Apostle Paul was talking about the warfare betwixt the flesh and born again soul of man.

 

No, his greatest desire is to mate AND eat the zebra. The thing that compatabilists claim are the greatest desires are not, they are merely desires, and choosing is based on circumstances, not desire, even with instinctive animals.

 

Who has said anything about fallen men being "good"? This is merely a straw man argument.

The Bible gives numerous examples of the wicked doing good things...BUT...that does NOT merit salvation. What did God tell Cain in Genesis 4?

 

Well that isn't a mystery, but that is not what we were discussing. Of course all thing are of God, including contra-causally free moral agents...at least from our perspective. You seem to presume we don't believe that.

I'm not following you. Are you saying that the agent chooses his desire or his action? Suppose, you have a desire to lie to protect your reputation, but you also have a desire not to sin by lying. You have two competing desires but you have to make the choice on how to act. Are you saying the desire will determine your act? And your desire was determined by someone other than yourself? (i.e. God?)

Please explain.

 

We believe free choices are from Him, just like you believe predetermined choices are from him. He created us to be RESPONSE-ABLED.

As Tozer put it:

"God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so." - A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God

 

Correct...as Tozer said it even more clearly than I could.

I have no idea what you mean.

I understand the dilemma your proposing. That is why we believe and affirm the mystery of a contra-causal choice, whether it is a choice of God or a choice of one created in His image. The alternative, in my opinion, is not biblically acceptable because it impugns the holiness of God and the clear teaching that God doesn't tempt men to evil nor does he have any trace of evil in Him. If all choices are 'put back a step onto God' then so are the evil ones...and there you are still left with the same level of mystery, as you still have an uncaused choice according to your system. All we are doing differently from your system is accept the mystery while the choice still man's responsibility...and WHY NOT since the bible treats men as if they are responsible?

Not if the chooser is caused to be contra-causally free by God...something you ASSUME cannot be. (i.e. question begging)