Could God impart independency

[Skandelon]

Thanks.

Let me be clear. I believe in free will if by it you mean the ability to choose what you want.

But the question is why do you want what you want?

Now that's something worth pondering. Why do people want what they want?

It would do to lean back in one's chair and just meditate on that question for a good while.

Yes, men are free to do what they want, but why do they want what they want?

And to probe a bit further, what causes men to want what they want?

That question, imo, ought to be pondered even longer than the previous question.

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.

 

[webdog]

Between the two options that I am familiar with that are trly available to me- I will choose the one that I most want every time.

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

 

[percho]

The new birth does not refer to the future resurrection of our body as that is referred to in scriptures as "adoption" not new birth. The New birth has to do with our "spirit" not the flesh (Jn. 3:6).

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.

 

[Skandelon]

The wicked can do good, they cannot merit salvation.

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!!!

 

[Skandelon]

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

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.

 

[webdog]

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.

 

[Inspector Javert]

In other words, there is no cause for why the chooser chooses what he chooses.

Correct.

Skandelon attributes to choice, or the chooser, the characteristic that God alone can have- being an uncaused cause.

No he doesn't...let's break both of those down: "choice" and "chooser".
You have here contended that at least one of those is an UNCAUSED CAUSE (your words). But what does Skan actually believe:
1.) Choice: being an abstraction.....by definition, a choice is causally inert (like the number 7). Choices "cause" and can cause nothing. But, then is the choice uncaused? No, because as you submit, the choice is caused by the chooser or agent.

That's one down.

2.) The agent or chooser:....not being a mere abstraction, a chooser can stand in a causal relation, therefore it CAN cause something. That is, namely, the "choice".
But is it "uncaused"? No, because the chooser's cause is God. So, also, his categorical ability to make free decisions is caused by God.

It is a mover, but not an un-moved mover....the only un-moved mover is God.

That's two down.

That's what contra-causal is. It means nothing caused it.


con·tra
In contrast or opposition to; against.
adv.
In opposition to something stated or expected; to the contrary.

Then your argument based entirely upon the lexical definition of "contra-causal" requires us to use better terminology (which I've always preferred using anyway.) Better "L.F.W." You know full well Skan doesn't believe that a choice has NO cause...But since you can breed confusion this way, better Skan (always should have IMO) called it "Libertarian Free Will". You know full-well that the Lexical definition of a word does NOT always properly explain how a person uses it in any given circumstance. It is so here. Skan is not using the term that way in this debate. You should know that.

Watching the "Sword and the Stone"....the cook wags her finger at and calls Merlin an "old-goat"

goat
n.
1. Any of various hollow-horned, bearded ruminant mammals of the genus Capra, originally of mountainous areas of the Old World, especially any of the domesticated forms of C. hircus, raised for wool, milk, and meat.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/goat

I submit that both you and I know that the cook was not contending that Merlin was a particularly greatly aged livestock mammal.

That attribute can belong to God alone. Only God is uncaused.

What attribute? Being an UNCAUSED CAUSE? Yes, you are correct.
Choices are caused by moral agents and Moral agents are caused by God. There's no argument here.

When Skandelon says that a choice is based on the chooser he is attributing to the chooser God's incommunicable attribute of independency.

You keep wanting to use the words "cause" and "based" interchangeably, and then subsequently take "aseity" and use it interchangeably with the word "Independent". I am beginning to suspect that wittingly or not you are trading on semantic ambiguities.
For example:
If you implant the idea that the word "Independent" is synonymous with aseity (as I think you did in the last thread) then no one can then say something like. "People make free choices 'Independent' of internal or external sufficient causes". (A perfectly Orthodox statement)....and then you can get your "A-HA!" moment by accusing them of believing that there are abstractions (like choices) or causes (like moral agents) that are UNCAUSED or exist a-se. You are trading on semantic ambiguity here, and it should stop.

A choice cannot say of itself "I am that I am" and therefore it is dependent.

Correct.....it has a cause, namely a moral agent.

The chooser cannot say of himself "I am that I am."

Correct, although a "chooser" stands in causal relations...he is not un-caused (because he has a creator) namely God.

Therefore his choosing is contingent

Sure....I mean he has to actually exist before he can choose,
He has to have a quandary or circumstance not entirely of his own making to generate a circumstance upon which to deliberate,
He must posses a Mind with which to decide,
He must have a brain to interact with his mind....
need I go on?

dependent and fully relying upon God for his existence and for the existence of all that he does.

Yes, but who is arguing that choosers are self-existent? Again, no one.

Skandelon tries to wiggle out from under this by saying that choices do have influences but that the influences are not sufficient guarantors of what the choice will be.

I agree with him.

What then IS the sufficient guarantor and what does it look to in order to guarantee the choice?

There isn't one. I know no good reason to assume there must be one.

He cannot answer.

Because he doesn't know....so what?

Scripture says that in God we live and move and have our being. The Word of God says that Christ was before all things and by HIM all things CONSIST.

Yes, it does. And it is absolutely true.

The only thing in the universe that is uncaused is GOD.

Yes. :sleeping_2:

Not man's puny choices

No, they aren't.... they are caused by agents

and not the puny choosers of those choices.

No, they aren't....they are caused by God.
De'ja-vu anyone? I could have sworn someone has mentioned this before.

Being UNCAUSED is the PREMIER attribute of God. It is THE ESSENCE of his very name, Jehovah.

Correct, neither choices nor choosers are un-caused.

To snatch that attribute down from its highest and holiest perch in the nature of God and to attribute it to a man choosing is really a VERY DANGEROUS THING.

There is only one person who is arguing that it even can EITHER negatively OR positively be attributed to choices either for or against
Pro or con
....and that is actually you.

Those who believe in L.F.W. (since it isn't really 'contra-causal'- or non-caused) know you are engaged in arguing based upon a category mistake.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

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.

 

[convicted1]

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.

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.....

 

[Inspector Javert]

Bingo!!!! :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.

 

[convicted1]

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.

 

[webdog]

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.....

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.

 

[webdog]

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.

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?

 

[Luke2427]

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.

Because it is not a mystery. All things are of God and by Him all things that consist, consist.

And as for the desires question. No. You choose what you desire most if you are able.

If the inner man is stronger, the desire for righteousness will be greater- and that is what you will choose.

 

[Luke2427]

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

Your circumstance in your post here is your cause for the choice- thus that choice is not "contra" causal.

The greatest desire among real options is still going to be the choice made.

 

[Skandelon]

Because it is not a mystery. All things are of God and by Him all things that consist, consist.

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.

And as for the desires question. No. You choose what you desire most if you are able.

If the inner man is stronger, the desire for righteousness will be greater- and that is what you will choose.

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.

 

[Luke2427]

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...

Of course all things are of God, including those things that are not of him... Got it!

at least from our perspective. You seem to presume we don't believe that.

To say that all things are of him (which includes choices) and then say that choices are not of him but are of man which is of Him but not that part that makes choices- is madness.

You might as well speak of dry water.

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?

Yes.

And your desire was determined by someone other than yourself? (i.e. God?)

Ultimately- yes.

There are causes for desires (your taste buds, your environment and experiences, etc, etc, etc...) God controls all of those things.

 

[Skandelon]

To say that all things are of him (which includes choices) and then say that choices are not of him

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

 

[Luke2427]

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

If I understand you correectly, you believe that the ABILITY to choose is from him- not the choice itself.

The choice is nobody's but man's. It looks for its existence to none other than the man who made it. Thus, the choice (not the ability to choose) has the incommunicable attribute of independecy.

Of course what you usually like to do at this point is say, "The choice is NOT based on nothing! It is based on the CHOOSER! That is not nothing!!!"

Which only puts the dilemma back a step. But if the choice depends on the chooser and the chooser depends on God, then the choice depends on God. It is not, then, independent.

Or, if you prefer:

If the choice is CAUSED by the chooser and the chooser is caused by God then the choice is caused by God.

 

[Skandelon]

If I understand you correectly, you believe that the ABILITY to choose is from him- not the choice itself.

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

The choice is nobody's but man's. It looks for its existence to none other than the man who made it. Thus, the choice (not the ability to choose) has the incommunicable attribute of independecy.

I have no idea what you mean.

Of course what you usually like to do at this point is say, "The choice is NOT based on nothing! It is based on the CHOOSER! That is not nothing!!!"

Which only puts the dilemma back a step. But if the choice depends on the chooser and the chooser depends on God, then the choice depends on God. It is not, then, independent.

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?

If the choice is CAUSED by the chooser and the chooser is caused by God then the choice is caused by God.

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