Could God impart independency

[Skandelon]

That's because you believe God can make God

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.

and you deny the fundamental doctrine of ALL OF THEISM- God's independency.

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.

 

[Skandelon]

By this statement it is safe to say you know as much about contra causal freewill as you did when you first heard it, and the rest of your conclusions are merely an erected straw man based on the faulty presupposition.

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

 

[Luke2427]

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.

This whole statement is a smokescreen designed to fool easily fooled people.
Skandelon knows that this is not the issue, but he's banking that readers of this are dumb enough to be fooled by his tactics here.

The issue is that EVERYTHING in the universe is contingent.

This is includes CHOICES.

The only thing that is TRULY independent is GOD.

He is the UNCAUSED cause.

Skandelon has man being the uncaused cause of choices. He thus makes man into GOD.

 

[Luke2427]

Mood, options, outcomes, mental state, and a host of other factors only the person would know as we cannot crawl into their head.

Ok. And what brings about those things?

 

[webdog]

Ok. And what brings about those things?

Any number of things.

 

[Skandelon]

The issue is that EVERYTHING in the universe is contingent.

contingent = determined
everything = evil

God = Holy, not even a trace of evil

Skandelon has man being the uncaused cause of choices. He thus makes man into GOD.

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.

 

[agedman]

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!

 

[agedman]

We simply believe that man makes choices. And we believe God makes choices.

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.

 

[webdog]

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.

 

[Skandelon]

"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.

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?

 

[Luke2427]

contingent = determined
everything = evil

God = Holy, not even a trace of evil

It is not even REMOTELY difficult for a child in elementary school to conceive of how God could will evil to exist without being evil, Skandelon.

My FIFTH grader gets it.

You saying that God bringing all things to pass like the Bible TEACHES means that God is EVIL is ignorant. And its tired and wore out. Arminians have been beat into the ground on this point for 200 years. It's past time to move on.

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

Yea, but you do it the blasphemous way of making man INTO God.

I just have man doing what God determined he would do. Mine sounds a whole lot more like the God of the Bible.

In my view, man is not the uncaused cause of choices. That doesn't even make sense.

Maybe you are just not able to get it. It does make sense to many people. Maybe you're just not able to get it.

We simply believe that man makes choices.

Which is a worthless statement because nobody on EARTH thinks otherwise.

The question has NEVER been... NEVER been... "Does man make choices?"

I suppose PRIMATES understand that.

The question that you avoid as if it were the roaring fires of Hell itself is this: ON WHAT BASIS DOES MAN MAKE THOSE CHOICES?

Then you say- HIMSELF!!

Which is utterly meaningless.

What causes him to choose what he chooses?

Desires and the like, right?

Where do those things come from?

You know where this is going and you know what the answer is. My FIFTH grader figured it out without being told.

Small children in our youth group have no trouble discerning the OBVIOUS answer. It may in fact be the most obvious thing in all of theism. I do not think that is hyperbole.

It all goes back to GOD.

Only a HACK would deny that. And you would only deny it because you care more about how you FEEL emotionally about the truth than the truth- the OBVIOUS truth itself.

And we believe God makes choices. Luke denies both of these biblical truths, btw.

Nobody who believes God has always known all there is to ever know about everything thinks that God ponders between options and figures out at some point what he really wants and then chooses. The idea of such nonsense is frankly blasphemous.

Everybody who believes that God is omniscient (or in other words- is GOD!) like the BIBLE teaches knows that any little bit of talk there is in the Bible about God "choosing" is anthropomorphic language.