TibiasDad
Well-known member
It’s not a definition, it is a logical inference. Freedom of choice simply means that my choice is not necessitated by anything outside of myself.
Doug
We choose. We chose. You choose. You chose. You will choose.
- Thread starter The Rogue Tomato
- Start date
Doug
civic
Well-known member
ditto
makesends
Well-known member
I don't know if he is saying that, but I am (saying that).
I would like to see you try to disprove it, logically. (I've already seen you try to disprove it from the Bible.)
Diserner
Well-known member
Was just a joke, sorry...
makesends
Well-known member
Are you saying the ability to choose "is not necessitated by anything outside of myself" or are you saying that the choices "[are] not necessitated by anything outside of myself."
Either way, EVERYTHING is a result of first cause, or there is no first cause. Prove me wrong logically. (I've already seen you try to do so from the Bible).
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
There are no options without cause. Cause establishes choices.
civic
Well-known member
Prove your assumption a choice must have a first cause outside of the human will.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
There is also indirect causation. This world is full of it. God started it all but that does not create culpability. For example, the automobile maker didn't create a automobile expressly for the purpose of killing families. However, it is very real fact that entire families have lost their lives in an automobile.
God puts up "stop signs" throughout life, if you run a stop sign, don't blame God for the result.
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
Now you're agreeing with me. Our "free will" only means we freely choose according to our inclination. Our inclination is the cause of our choices.
The next step is where we probably disagree. Scripture teaches that our inclination is slavishly bound to sin unless we are born again.
TibiasDad
Well-known member
I have disproved it from scripture, whether you believe it or not is another question.
Doug
TibiasDad
Well-known member
These are influences, but not causes. We choose to follow or go against these influences, the cause being our own will to act. Even before conversion, we don’t always sin when tempted.
Doug
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I agree that some choices are set by God. There is no doubt about this. I also mentioned indirect causation. Just because God "sets the tables" doesn't mean that we don't get to choose what we eat.
Inclination is not determination. We have a inclination to sin but sin literally HURTS us. It damages us. Which is why motives are so very important. This is where I often disagree with Arminianism. We can choose good things for all the wrong reasons. However, we can also choose good things for the right reasons. Which is why I'm not 100 percent on Total Depravity.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
We are saying the same thing. I'm dealing with "cause" from an orgination stand point. Not from an aspect entirely of the will. No matter how we try, we often do not have the will to choose different from our inclinations. We often end up hating our own choices.
There is a balance to be found in all this. I believe in limited free will. Paul spoke of this here.....
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.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Sin is like a fire. It burns and burns until it scares and leaves our senses deadened. Can a man take fire in his bosom and his cloths not be burned...
Once we see something once we touch something... it leaves an impression on our brains. It will often stay there the rest of our lives without regard to our own will.
Which is why we have the good news of the Gospel and the love of Christians to make a difference in our lives. Someone once said that the fruit of a Christian is another Christian.
I would to God that we could love one another to the point of forgiving one another because Christ has forgiven us. Sometimes we can make a difference. Sometimes we can't. Some people refuse to be comforted.
TibiasDad
Well-known member
I’m not sure we are talking about the same thing. Cause is what makes things necessarily real. The Calvinist says that God causes the necessity of all realities by his decrees. Thus, the cause is God’s decree, not my choice.
I do not hold Romans 7 to be speaking of a Christian experience, nor do I think it speaks of free will, but rather bondage and inability to overcome sin.
I agree.
Agreed
I would say that the fruit of a disciple is another disciple.
If we don’t forgive as God forgave us, we will not be forgiven. (Matt 6:15)
True enough!
Doug
makesends
Well-known member
Ha! Prove the assumption that any of our choices is completely independent!
ANY influence is a cause. And any choice is contingent on what came before it.
But, start from the default: God (not us)
God is first cause. Agreed? Then all other things fall out exactly as caused. The notion that it is not so, but that there is other absolute spontaneity of its own source, is a denial of the meaning of first cause, and a denial of Scripture's claims.
God caused all things whatsoever happens.
Last edited:
TibiasDad
Well-known member
Influence is not synonymous with cause. Nobody denies that there are influences or even, at least in my opinion, our sinful nature, but this doesn’t mean that our every decision is made outside of ourselves. These are very strong influences, but they do not make me choose them as a necessary action. They are enticements, but they are not the cause of my choice. “The devil made me do it!” is a lie. Our own desires and choice of them cause sinning to occur.
Doug
makesends
Well-known member
No kidding. What does that prove? But can you show me an influence that has no effects? That it has effects means that it is a cause.
Who describes the lack of libertarian free will by the wording, "Our every decision is made outside of ourselves."? Your decisions are made from within you. How does that deny that our decisions are caused?
TibiasDad
Well-known member
You said, “ANY influence is a cause”, which means they are one and the same. Influences suggest a specific effect, but our choosing then causes the experience of said effect. The last element of the equation is the effectual cause, and that is always the human choice.
Obviously I do. I do so because I think the Calvinist have set the definition to give them an advantage in proving compatibility of freedom of will and predetermination. It doesn’t work with any other definition. It makes for a stacked deck.
I haven’t said our decisions aren’t caused, I said that the who and when the cause is effected is ours alone. It is not a decree of God that causes me to write this post; it is my choice of words and my decision between various points of view as to what and why I believe as I do.
Doug
Rockson
Well-known member
And Calvinists will fight one tooth and toe nail saying that's not true. As for me I don't let them get away with it without telling them that's nonsensical. If God is decreeing things and ordaining things that's causation. To say man has a choice when God had ordained they do something beforehand is contradictory.
