Will- Is there not a cause?

[Luke2427]

It certainly doesn't tell one that God is the "cause" of sin.

Let me ask you something: Can an individual without volition be logically/truthfuly held morally responsible for his choices?

No one believes that humans have no volition.

Humans are perfectly free to do what they want.

But their "want" is controlled by forces outside of themselves.

 

[jbh28]

I disagree. I sin all the time, but I do not have to sin, nobody is holding a gun to my head. I liked to party when I was a teenager, sure, I had the urge, but I didn't have to do it, and sometimes I refused to do it.

You sinned because you wanted to. I agree

Tell the truth, have you absolutely ever been forced to sin? Could you have refused to sin and done the right thing in that situation?

Sure. Who said otherwise?

Now, I believe this, once you start sinning, it becomes easier to do it the next time, and the next time you do it it becomes even easier to do it the third time and so on. This is what Proverbs 5:22 says.

Prov 5:22 His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins.

Right, but irrelevant to the point.

I remember reading a story about Paul MacCartney many years ago. He said that he started sniffing heroin, because he thought that way he wouldn't become addicted. He did a little more, and a little more, and then he realized he was addicted and having a real problem with it.

You're missing the point. It's not about you being forced to sin. It's why do we sin? Why does God not sin? Is somebody holding a gun to God's head and forcing him to do good?

 

[Luke2427]

Free will should be defined as volition and this sustains the meaning that a creature has the ability to consciously choose; one can not do both, have this ability and not have this ability in any logical sense. If creaturely response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the creature then creaturely volition logically becomes void.

You have not been reading this thread at all have you?

ALL of us Calvinists believe that man has the ability to choose.

You can say it becomes void but you can't make a case for how else it works.

You cannot make a case that choices do not have causes.

Let me tell you WHY you cannot make this case. It is illogical. It violates the laws of the universe which God set up.

Cause and effect.

EVERYTHING since God built the universe is an effect that has a cause.

Choices do not MAGICALLY get to avoid these God made laws.

Nor can you make a case biblically.

The Word of God is clear.

God worketh ALL THINGS after the counsel of his own will.

For of him and through him and to him are ALL THINGS.

Period. That's it. End of story.

Men have choices but choices have causes. Scripture and logic DEMAND it.

Deny it if you want. That is your CHOICE. But know that the CHOICE to deny this plain truth has a cause. Perhaps stubborn blindness, etc...

 

[Jarthur001]

I am always amazed at Calvinists and how they often say the exact opposite of what the scriptures say. You say sin always comes from bondage, but the scriptures say the exact opposite.

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

:BangHead::BangHead:

Another reason it would help to study rather than just to look for passages that on their own, SEEM AT 1ST to support your views.

This verse is a reply by Christ...

33They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.


He is telling them that they are from the Devil. In fact he later says this.


44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.



So you see...this supports the Calvinist view.

Did Jesus say whoever is the servant of sin (in bondage to sin) sins? No, he said the exact opposite, he said whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin.

Again...read the whole passage. Their actions speak to the fact that they follow the devil.

Paul said the same.

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Did Paul say we must yield to sin because we are servants to sin? No, he said the opposite, he said that to whoever we yield ourselves to obey, his servants we become.

Win...please. Stop just quoting verses without reading the whole book. verse 16 is telling us we BELIEVERS should obey Christ. Grace is not for us to SIN MORE. This is another way of proclaiming the Lordship in salvation. We can tell who they belong to, by the works they do.

15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?


But while we are in this passage.....Now look at 18..

18Being then made free from sin, >>>>>>>>>>>>ye became >>>>the servants of righteousness.
​

We are freed from sin 1st. Freed from unbelieving faith. Our blindness is removed. Our ears are opened.

Then we BECOME...

Then we have a new Master...

Then we follow righteousness

 

[Luke2427]

Just because God allows someone to choose sin, doesn't mean He is the cause of that sin.

God hates sin, He is not causing us to sin.

God does hate sin but he willed that it exist for the greater good.

I hate going to the gym (not really, but sometimes) but I will myself to go for the greater good.

 

[Luke2427]

Sorry I didn't make it clear. I'll try again.

I just don't understand. You used the analogy of you choosing the unpopular choice of calf livers to support the view that we really don't have a free will when making choices, but are instead bound to choose certain things.





When I asked the question, but replaced a persons s*xual preference for calf livers or burgers you said they were "accountable" because :

Can you explain this contradiction?

I think you missed the illustration. You must not have read it very thoroughly.

I like calf liver and gravy.

I choose it over a Krystal burger beCAUSE it is what I most want between the two.

The "want" though is shaped by forces other than myself.

That does not change the consequence just because other forces shaped my wants. I still get indigestion. I still have to answer for my choices.

 

[Steven2006]

I think you missed the illustration. You must not have read it very thoroughly.

I like calf liver and gravy.

I choose it over a Krystal burger beCAUSE it is what I most want between the two.

The "want" though is shaped by forces other than myself.

That does not change the consequence just because other forces shaped my wants. I still get indigestion. I still have to answer for my choices.

I understood your analogy, and the part I question is this quote.

""Was your will to choose completely free with no inclinations to the one or the other? Absolutely not. If you are like most folks I know your will was bound to choose the burger."

You made it very clear you believe that a person would "absolutely not" have free will when making choices. However when I replaced the food in your analogy with a person choosing their s*xual preference you backtracked, my question is why? Why the difference? Why doesn't your statement apply to all the choices man makes? We are either as you say "absolutely not" free to choose, but instead "bound to choose" or not? Which is it?

 

[Robert Snow]

People murder other people because they are led away of their own lusts. They are doing those things they desire to do because they are sinners.

Let me turn the tables a little. Why does one sinner chose to murder and another sinner choses not to. Is it their free will they are exercising, or did God program them to act that way?

 

[Robert Snow]

Yet God is FULLY in control, and every single thing that happens, is what he desires; otherwise He would have stopped it, as He is fully capable of doing.

I believe this is an heretical statement. This makes God responsible for sin, which is something He cannot do. This is what I call Hyper-Calvinism, something I will stand against until my dying breath! Man is responsible for his actions, not God, in my opinion.

 

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Let me ask you something: Can an individual without volition be logically/truthfuly held morally responsible for his choices?

No one believes that humans have no volition.

Humans are perfectly free to do what they want.

But their "want" is controlled by forces outside of themselves.

First, you say, “no one believes that humans have no volition” and “humans are perfectly free to do what they want” then, you say, “their want is controlled by forces outside of themselves”. Let me clarify a big problem you have in this ignorant double-speak concerning your Determinist view with some simplistic logic on this issue of thinking you can have it both ways:

1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen


“Your” conclusion in no way supports creaturely volition/ability to choose! So back to my question: How can they be held responsible if their ability (the cause, if you like) is “controlled” or determined?!

You have not been reading this thread at all have you?

ALL of us Calvinists believe that man has the ability to choose.

You can say it becomes void but you can't make a case for how else it works.

You cannot make a case that choices do not have causes.

Ever consider that maybe it is you that should read more carefully because you seem to miss the logical facts for your ranting? I defined free will/volition and made the case that free will/volition is a logical necessity to establish a causal means right here:

Originally Posted by Benjamin
Free will should be defined as volition and this sustains the meaning that a creature has the ability to consciously choose; one can not do both, have this ability and not have this ability in any logical sense. If creaturely response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the creature then creaturely volition logically becomes void.

If you can’t follow and/or acknowledge simple logical principles and questions I can’t help you and am not interested in dealing with your rabbit trail rhetorical rants. Deal with the issues or "End of story".

 

[Robert Snow]

A dog or a goat will eat anything! Especially if it is starving.

My pit bull mix might even eat a Calvinist if she gets hungry enough! :laugh:

 

[Havensdad]

I believe this is an heretical statement. This makes God responsible for sin, which is something He cannot do. This is what I call Hyper-Calvinism, something I will stand against until my dying breath! Man is responsible for his actions, not God, in my opinion.

Never said man wasn't responsible. But God is also fully in control, and nothing happens, except what He has willed and planned. Both are true.

And, no, this is not hyper calvinism. Hyper Calvinism has nothing to do with the will(s) of God. It has to do with evangelism.

Tell me: if God doesn't want a person to be murdered, then why does He allow it? He is more than capable of stopping it, without impinging on a person's so-called "free will." For instance, he could have the police show up, cause some kind of a natural disaster, or give the murderer a heart attack. And these things, in fact, stop murders ALL THE TIME. And no one would hesitate saying "Thank you Lord for intervening."

Yet these people fail to take this to the logical conclusion. Why does God NOT stop those other murders?

Answer this: Who brought about the death of Christ? (God) Who is responsible for His death? (Man)

Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know--
Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

 

[Tom Butler]

Answer this: Who brought about the death of Christ? (God) Who is responsible for His death? (Man)

Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know--
Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

This is the definitive scripture which erases the conflict between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.

In the death of the Christ, God is fully sovereign and man is fully responsible.

God is no less sovereign in the affairs of men. And men are no less responsible.

 

[Benjamin]

There is no conflict to erase, God's plan has not changed from the beginning; in a nut shell:

God’s Divine Exhaustive Foreknowledge of His creature’s (who were made in His image and likeness and also would have the ability to freely “choose” to have knowledge; who would desire themselves to be as little gods, Gen 3:5, 3:22, and would fall in that decision because there is Only One God and Only One that is Good) fall, did in love for His creation, promise His Son for an atonement for the sins of ALL His creatures in creation before time began. God, in His great wisdom, knowing man would fall lovingly fore-provided/determined a Way for salvation for belief of the Truth.

This in no way hinders the creature’s free will/volitional design which allows, in truth, for God’s Righteous Judgment. God influences and we respond or not; God does not cause a determined effect on us or logically/truthfully not only does creaturely responsibilities become void, but also ultimately this would contradict the scriptures which proclaim He made the world “very good”, and that God is “patient, Love and Truth and without inequity in character, and while in this Truth all His just ways involve judgment in the Divine Nature of the Truth in which He exists. (Deut 32:4).

In a reliance on “cause and effect” rather than “influence and response” one is simply denying God’s Righteous Judgment and is avoiding the “true Divine creational design” he was made with that gives him the ability, through God’s Loving Grace (not Calvin’s ideas of selective grace) to freely choose God’s Love through the influences God provides to all His creatures. The greatness of God’s sovereignty is seen in His Divine creational design of His creatures; in involves our free will responses in love for the Truth that He gives us all and this brings Him glory. God is Great!

I’m done, it’s Christmas. Merry Christmas to all!