Could God impart independency

[Luke2427]

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)

Post 57 already answers all of this.

The choice, not just the ability to choose, but the choice itself- is it of God?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Post 57 already answers all of this.

Seems to me Post # 57 raises more questions than it answers.

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

That would imply that God created evil, suffering, pestilence, famine, disease. Really???

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.

Have you ever bothered to look up the definition of a contra-causal effect? You seem to assume the only form of free will is classic dualistic free will, which demands that the choice lie either with the chooser, or with God, and that there can be no in-between. However, the relationship between parent and child proves the existence of contra-causal free will beyond a shadow of a doubt. I've watched you deny the existence of the concept through this and other threads, and frankly, it's driving us all to moribundity. You don't know what you're talking about.

Take the parent-child example. A parent disciplines the child as an effort to correct the child's behavior. The child chooses the behavior again rather than obey the parent. The process is repeated, with slightly greater success, but again, the child chooses the behavior against the parent's knowledge of what is in the child's best interest.

The parent is actually unable to make the choice for the child. The only thing the parent can do is attempt to influence the child's choices through discipline, education, and love. This is precisely the way God drives our desire to know Him. He can't, without violating our freedom -- and He simply won't do that -- make the choice for us, so what He does is do the same thing the parent does. He provides evidence, correction, enlightenment, education, and influence that helps us understand that the only real, correct choice is faith in Him. This is contra-causal free will. It exists in the world around you. It exists between God and man, and your denials won't change that.

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

Actually, that's ridiculous. Does God tell you what foods you will like and dislike? Is it His determination, or your own? If you say "His," you're wrong, and haven't been listening.

The choice, not just the ability to choose, but the choice itself- is it of God?

The ability for us to choose lies with us, but that ability is given to us, and influenced by, God Himself. Refute it if you can, but logically, you can't.

 

[Skandelon]

The parent is actually unable to make the choice for the child. The only thing the parent can do is attempt to influence the child's choices through discipline, education, and love. This is precisely the way God drives our desire to know Him....

Actually, the parent COULD drug the child making them desire to obey, right?

Apparently, some think that is the only way God could work to accomplish his purposes...through irresistible means. This is such a small view of the divine, IMO...having to play both sides of the chess board to ensure victory... a very limited perspective indeed.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Actually, the parent COULD drug the child making them desire to obey, right?

:laugh: Then again, is not being able to do anything at all really "obedience," or something else?

Apparently, some think that is the only way God could work to accomplish his purposes...through irresistible means. This is such a small view of the divine, IMO...having to play both sides of the chess board to ensure victory... a very limited perspective indeed.

Exactly. Seems prevalent in these parts occasionally.

Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow!

 

[Luke2427]

Seems to me Post # 57 raises more questions than it answers.

That would imply that God created evil, suffering, pestilence, famine, disease. Really???

So you reject fact because you don't LIKE it????

Evil is not something God created because evil, like darkness is not someTHING. Darkness is the absence of light. It cannot be created. It is nothing. It is only the ABSENCE of something. Evil is the absence of good. It is not something created just as darkness is not something created. So no, God is not the creator of evil- neither is anything else the creator of evil.

But that's beside the point. Arminians reject facts because they do not like what they THINK they imply. They don't CARE about what is obviously true. They just care about what they WANT to believe.

Have you ever bothered to look up the definition of a contra-causal effect? You seem to assume the only form of free will is classic dualistic free will, which demands that the choice lie either with the chooser, or with God, and that there can be no in-between. However, the relationship between parent and child proves the existence of contra-causal free will beyond a shadow of a doubt. I've watched you deny the existence of the concept through this and other threads, and frankly, it's driving us all to moribundity. You don't know what you're talking about.

In this little diatribe you make no arguments. You share no pertinent information. You just insult. This is what Arminians often do. You don't have facts. You don't have arguments. You deny common sense. You don't have the preponderance of scholarship on your side. So you do this silly mess above.

Take the parent-child example. A parent disciplines the child as an effort to correct the child's behavior. The child chooses the behavior again rather than obey the parent. The process is repeated, with slightly greater success, but again, the child chooses the behavior against the parent's knowledge of what is in the child's best interest.

The parent is actually unable to make the choice for the child. The only thing the parent can do is attempt to influence the child's choices through discipline, education, and love. This is precisely the way God drives our desire to know Him. He can't, without violating our freedom -- and He simply won't do that --

That's not true!!

Why do you think God simply WON'T do that. That is question begging in the highest degree.

make the choice for us, so what He does is do the same thing the parent does.

No. He doesn't.

He provides evidence, correction, enlightenment, education, and influence

and life, breath, the electrical impulses that cause the synopses in the brain, and thought, and will, and existence, and the universe around the person and everything else. He provides it ALL.

This is what Arminians deny.

Actually, that's ridiculous. Does God tell you what foods you will like and dislike?

What does that have to do with anything? He gives me my very existence. He doesn't HAVE to verbalize commands.

Is it His determination, or your own? If you say "His," you're wrong, and haven't been listening.

Oh, well.... if you say so.

The ability for us to choose lies with us,

Oh, well.... if you say so.

but that ability is given to us, and influenced by, God Himself.

Oh, well.... if you say so.

Refute it if you can, but logically, you can't.

That's all I have been doing... refuting it logically and theologically.

 

[Luke2427]

Actually, the parent COULD drug the child making them desire to obey, right?

Apparently, some think that is the only way God could work to accomplish his purposes...through irresistible means. This is such a small view of the divine, IMO...having to play both sides of the chess board to ensure victory... a very limited perspective indeed.

That's because you believe God can make God and you deny the fundamental doctrine of ALL OF THEISM- God's independency.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

So you reject fact because you don't LIKE it????

No, I reject it because it isn't true.

Evil is not something God created because evil, like darkness is not someTHING. Darkness is the absence of light. It cannot be created. It is nothing. It is only the ABSENCE of something. Evil is the absence of good. It is not something created just as darkness is not something created. So no, God is not the creator of evil- neither is anything else the creator of evil.

Bad analogy that doesn't hold up once one actually reads the Bible. Evil is a force, a force is "something" and it is embodied in Satan.

But that's beside the point. Arminians reject facts because they do not like what they THINK they imply. They don't CARE about what is obviously true. They just care about what they WANT to believe.

You think I'm an Arminian??? :laugh: You don't pay attention around here, do you?

In this little diatribe you make no arguments. You share no pertinent information. You just insult. This is what Arminians often do. You don't have facts. You don't have arguments. You deny common sense. You don't have the preponderance of scholarship on your side. So you do this silly mess above.

Selective quotes are beneath honest debaters, so I guess that shows what you are. There were no insults in that first paragraph, but there were rebukes, rightly posted toward your comments. Also, you selectively posted a quote for your attack, otherwise it wouldn't bear any weight whatsoever. So let's go ahead and post everything I said all in one place, shall we, just to be sure everyone knows what you purposefully left out? Then we'll break down your "comments."

Take the parent-child example. A parent disciplines the child as an effort to correct the child's behavior. The child chooses the behavior again rather than obey the parent. The process is repeated, with slightly greater success, but again, the child chooses the behavior against the parent's knowledge of what is in the child's best interest.

The parent is actually unable to make the choice for the child. The only thing the parent can do is attempt to influence the child's choices through discipline, education, and love. This is precisely the way God drives our desire to know Him. He can't, without violating our freedom -- and He simply won't do that -- make the choice for us, so what He does is do the same thing the parent does. He provides evidence, correction, enlightenment, education, and influence that helps us understand that the only real, correct choice is faith in Him. This is contra-causal free will. It exists in the world around you. It exists between God and man, and your denials won't change that.

Actually, that's ridiculous. Does God tell you what foods you will like and dislike? Is it His determination, or your own? If you say "His," you're wrong, and haven't been listening.

The ability for us to choose lies with us, but that ability is given to us, and influenced by, God Himself. Refute it if you can, but logically, you can't.

That's not true!!

OK, please explain how a parent is able to force obedience, as that is precisely what your accusation here implies, it having been aimed at the second paragraph of that section of my post, and only the first sentence of the next, plus half the second sentence.

Why do you think God simply WON'T do that. That is question begging in the highest degree.

Hardly, and in making this statement you display the classic error of the hyper-Calvinist view that is completely unbiblical, wandering into one of two extremes in regard to this question. You emphasize the sovereignty of God to the point that human beings are little more than robots simply doing what they have been sovereignly programmed to do, which is utterly absurd and unsupportable from God's word. There are others who emphasize free will to the point of God not having complete control and/or knowledge of all things, and you mistakenly place me and several others who refuse to agree with your views in that category, also untrue. Neither of these positions is biblical. The truth is that God does not violate our wills by choosing us and redeeming us. Rather, He changes our hearts so that our wills choose Him, just as the parent changes the heart and behavioral instincts of the child through love, chastisement, education, and discipline. As John wrote in his first epistle, "We love, because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19, NASB).

No. He doesn't.

What is this, kindergarten? You have no better argument than ...

"Does too."
"Does not."
"Yes, He does."
"No, He doesn't."​

and life, breath, the electrical impulses that cause the synopses in the brain, and thought, and will, and existence, and the universe around the person and everything else. He provides it ALL.

And allows it to function as He designed it, within the framework of His sovereign grace.

This is what Arminians deny.

It's becoming increasingly obvious you wouldn't know an Arminian from an armadillo.

What does that have to do with anything? He gives me my very existence. He doesn't HAVE to verbalize commands.

You're the one who brought it up.

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

I figured you'd know what I was talking about. But it's obvious you don't understand your own arguments, much less anyone else's. God doesn't control any of these things. He gave us these things to use within the framework of His sovereign grace. If He "controlled" those things, we'd be mere robots and would give Him no glory whatsoever, given that we were doing what we were programmed to do. It is in our decisions to obey, serve and worship Him that He is truly glorified.

Oh, well.... if you say so. [X3]

Brilliant comeback.

That's all I have been doing... refuting it logically and theologically.

Refuting, yes. Logically? Theologically?

Uh ... no.

 

[Luke2427]

No, I reject it because it isn't true.

Bad analogy that doesn't hold up once one actually reads the Bible. Evil is a force, a force is "something" and it is embodied in Satan.

Evil is like cold and hunger. They are the absence of things- not things themselves.

You think I'm an Arminian??? :laugh: You don't pay attention around here, do you?

I don't think you are anything. You are speaking like an Arminian. You may not know it, but you are.

Selective quotes are beneath honest debaters, so I guess that shows what you are. There were no insults in that first paragraph, but there were rebukes, rightly posted toward your comments. Also, you selectively posted a quote for your attack, otherwise it wouldn't bear any weight whatsoever. So let's go ahead and post everything I said all in one place, shall we, just to be sure everyone knows what you purposefully left out? Then we'll break down your "comments."

I don't even know what you are talking about here.

OK, please explain how a parent is able to force obedience, as that is precisely what your accusation here implies, it having been aimed at the second paragraph of that section of my post, and only the first sentence of the next, plus half the second sentence.

Force has nothing to do with it. If you knew what you were talking about like you try to pretend you'd know that no Calvinist believes that God generally FORCES people to do things.

The fact that I have to tell you that means I am already wasting my time trying to educate you.

Hardly, and in making this statement you display the classic error of the hyper-Calvinist view that is completely unbiblical, wandering into one of two extremes in regard to this question. You emphasize the sovereignty of God to the point that human beings are little more than robots simply doing what they have been sovereignly programmed to do, which is utterly absurd and unsupportable from God's word. There are others who emphasize free will to the point of God not having complete control and/or knowledge of all things, and you mistakenly place me and several others who refuse to agree with your views in that category, also untrue. Neither of these positions is biblical. The truth is that God does not violate our wills by choosing us and redeeming us. Rather, He changes our hearts so that our wills choose Him, just as the parent changes the heart and behavioral instincts of the child through love, chastisement, education, and discipline. As John wrote in his first epistle, "We love, because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19, NASB).

Nobody argues any of the things you are purporting here.

What is this, kindergarten? You have no better argument than ...

"Does too."
"Does not."
"Yes, He does."
"No, He doesn't."​

I was pointing out that that is what you were doing. You just keep CLAIMING things without supporting them.

You say "This is so." OH!!! Well since you say so!!

And allows it to function as He designed it, within the framework of His sovereign grace.

It's becoming increasingly obvious you wouldn't know an Arminian from an armadillo.

You don't know what you're talking about. I was an Arminian- a REAL Arminian. I was educated in an Arminian bible college. I was a Free Will Baptist preacher for more than a decade.

You need to learn to get information before you speak. I makes you look foolish.

You're the one who brought it up.

I figured you'd know what I was talking about. But it's obvious you don't understand your own arguments, much less anyone else's. God doesn't control any of these things. He gave us these things to use within the framework of His sovereign grace. If He "controlled" those things, we'd be mere robots and would give Him no glory whatsoever, given that we were doing what we were programmed to do. It is in our decisions to obey, serve and worship Him that He is truly glorified.

Brilliant comeback.

Refuting, yes. Logically? Theologically?

Uh ... no.

[/QUOTE]

You're not making arguments. You're just SAYING stuff.

I might as well respond with "Rubber babby buggy bumpers."

 

[agedman]

When I first heard of contra-casual free will, I actually thought, "What a tongue twisted mess!"

I haven't been far wrong.

There is never a time a person is "neutral" and without "cause" that molds the will.

The child (mentioned in earlier posts) may be "willfully disobedient" not because the "freely choose" but because they are bent in that manner.

The whole concept of "contra-casual free will" is the thinking that a person can make decisions outside of any internal or external motivations and drives.

It is totally wrong thinking, and embraced by many of the LBGT community because they want to puff up they decide their own manner of living.

But Romans disagree - and Paul would have no place for such "contra-casual free willy thinking.

 

[webdog]

When I first heard of contra-casual free will, I actually thought, "What a tongue twisted mess!"

I haven't been far wrong.

That was my first reaction with prevenient grace.

The whole concept of "contra-casual free will" is the thinking that a person can make decisions outside of any internal or external motivations and drives.

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.

 

[Luke2427]

That was my first reaction with prevenient grace.
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.

Still, the prefix "contra" means- "In contrast or opposition to; against."

You guys like to try to make the word "responsible" mean response-ABLE.

That's what AM is doing with your word "contra-causal."

Either something causes a man to choose what he chooses or not. Not just INFLUENCES it- causes it.

What is the "sufficient guarantor" of a man's choice?

What drives a man to choose what he chooses? Can you answer that?

 

[webdog]

Still, the prefix "contra" means- "In contrast or opposition to; against."

You guys like to try to make the word "responsible" mean response-ABLE.

That's what AM is doing with your word "contra-causal."

Either something causes a man to choose what he chooses or not. Not just INFLUENCES it- causes it.

What is the "sufficient guarantor" of a man's choice?

What drives a man to choose what he chooses? Can you answer that?

I know what it means, and the cause is the agent making the choice influenced by his circumstances, thought, etc.

 

[Luke2427]

I know what it means, and the cause is the agent making the choice influenced by his circumstances, thought, etc.

What causes the cause (the chooser)?

 

[agedman]

That was my first reaction with prevenient grace.
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 have turned this over in my thoughts for a while, and have decided that I refuse to link to LBGT sights that state EXACTLY what I posted as true.

That you and apparently Scan. don't recognize the worldly view of "contra-causal-freewill" is not obliging me to accept your inaccurate statements and definitions.

Btw, I do NOT hold that prevenient or preceding grace is biblical, it is no more aligned with Scriptures than the "contra-casual-freewill" view(s).

Both are grounded merely in the attempt to show how someone is "awakened to the need of Christ," sustained in some "neutral" ether of non-causative freedom so that they may "choose" from a pure, undefiled, innate volition to "accept or reject" the offer of salvation. It is a humanistic invention that has no Scriptural basis, but must rely on huge assumptions that would make the modernist dispy blush.

God gives to Christ who will be saved.

Christ saves them.

Simple, clean, no fuss, no mess, and no assumptions needed.

 

[Aaron]

:thumbs::thumbs:Here endeth the lesson.

 

[webdog]

What causes the cause (the chooser)?

A plethora of factors in opposition (contra) to one another.

 

[kyredneck]

...and the simple is made complex all because of, "Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?"

 

[Luke2427]

A plethora of factors in opposition (contra) to one another.

If it is a plethora you ought to be able to list 5 or 10 of them.

 

[webdog]

If it is a plethora you ought to be able to list 5 or 10 of them.

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

 

[Skandelon]

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

I'd say that some even the person is not even aware of... sometimes we are not very in touch with our feelings, thoughts, habits, motives, etc and don't even know all that is effecting our choices.

Therapy helps.