Featured Could God impart independency

Allow me to translate the Luken language for those following along. He thinks creating someone who is able to make choices independently from God's determination of those choices is equal to making another God. Apparently, God can be the only RESPONSE-ABLE one in our universe...or at least in Luke's view of the universe.

Right, because if others are independent in any capacity whatsoever then obviously God cannot be independent... everyone knows there can only be ONE independent being in the world.

 

I concur..........

 

Any number of things.

 

contingent = determined
everything = evil

God = Holy, not even a trace of evil

Ironic you accuse my view of blurring the lines between man and God when in your system God chooses and acts for man.

In my view, man is not the uncaused cause of choices. That doesn't even make sense. We simply believe that man makes choices. And we believe God makes choices. Luke denies both of these biblical truths, btw.

Choosers make choices. Determiners make determinations. Responsible people are able to respond. This all just basic common sense. Being responsible doesn't make one God.

 

The posts of this thread have become so very strange!

On one hand you have those who post in favor of "contra-causal-freewill" and yet agree that there are human inborn needs that cannot be suppressed which effect the choice - making it TOTALLY out of the worldly definition of the scheme.

Basic human needs such as: accepted, understood, important, desired, needed ... are part of the make up of every humankind from birth. Even the newborn shows evidence that the need factor is THE determined motivator. The list is certainly incomplete, and doesn't address the body needs of nutrition, warmth, shelter... in which deprivation results in death.

"Contra-causal-freewill" is constructed from the thinking that there are no imprinted needs (intellectual, spiritual, physical) and, because there is no causal influences upon the will in its purest form, decisions can be made from a neutral position of non-influence.

However, another side of the issue involves embracing some thinking that God moves a person into such a state of non-influence in which the person can be "free" to exercise some innate volition to choose or reject.

Yet, there is no Scriptures to show a person is placed by personal pursuit or by God into any such state.

Perhaps those that argue for such a state (as a personal effort or God determination) would be more wise in actually showing by Scriptures that such a place actually can be experienced by human kind.

I have read on other threads where some point to the Israeli were told to "choose this day..." but even then that is not conclusive, for clearly there was no actual change in the heart of that assembled group (they did not become believers). One can be just as the very rich young man who "kept all the law" and still was lost. Deciding to keep the law is not any indication of salvation.

I also have read on other threads that the conversions of Cornelius and the jailor were from free will, but then in context we see that the work of the Holy Spirit was obviously involved - as it is in the salvation of every believer. (Corneleus - actual vision given by God to Peter, Jailor the statement "what must I do...").

Which is the final point.

How is one in a "contra-casual-freewill" ethereal state when the Holy Spirit using the Word is at work upon that person?

Can anyone show how God and Satan are withheld from influencing the person so that they may set aside all needs and desires to make a choice completely free of all causes influencing the "free will?"

Where is the balance of Scriptures that support that thinking?

At least the original Arminian and Calvin thinking were not so needy as to not recognize that no one is saved without the purposed and direct work of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God!

That "Contra-Causal-Freewill" is not declared by the BB moderators and administrators as anti-Scriptural is very surprising to me!

 

Skandelon,

That IS NOT in line with the actual definition of "Contra-Causal-Freewill," and as I posted earlier, I will not link to such LBGT sites that discuss the definition and the use.

May I suggest that the use of the term is really not what you would consider Scripturally supported, nor truly in line with your view of the freedom of the will as expressed on the BB.

Perhaps in selecting this term to represent your thinking, you didn't realize the ramifications, nor how it is considered as a tool to bolster the ungodly thinking.

The term just does not represent your level of scholarship.

I am not suggesting in the slightest that you give up your view, just the use of that term to encapsulate your thinking.

 

You said "Contra-causal-freewill" is constructed from the thinking that there are no imprinted needs (intellectual, spiritual, physical) and, because there is no causal influences upon the will in its purest form, decisions can be made from a neutral position of non-influence."

That is not even close to the definition of CCFW. I would suggest taking your own advice given to skan.

 

I think Webdog beat me to the punch on this one, but this isn't representative of what I believe about contra-causal freedom.

This is one of the many reasons I typically try to stick with the word "responsible" (response-able), as it is most common term which represents what I'm addressing. Even that word is sometimes misinterpreted to mean "unable to respond but still culpable."

I've defiled CCF several times on this forum as: "A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."

In other words, if you sinned one hour ago was there anything preventing you from refraining from that sin?