The question the Arminian can't answer

[Colossians]

I have run this thread on a number of sites, and no Arminian has been able to answer it. Perhaps you could be the first! (Be ware though, many many have tried.)


Here's the question:
"What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who uses his free will to choose for God, but absent in the one who uses his free will to choose against God?"

In your attempted answer, try to avoid a question which begs an equivalent question. For example, avoid answers like "one had more faith than the other". (This is simply to beg the question "What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who has more faith and absent in the one who had less faith?)

[Kevin Wayne]

I have run this thread on a number of sites, and no Arminian has been able to answer it. Perhaps you could be the first! (Be ware though, many many have tried.)


Here's the question:
"What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who uses his free will to choose for God, but absent in the one who uses his free will to choose against God?"

In your attempted answer, try to avoid a question which begs an equivalent question. For example, avoid answers like "one had more faith than the other". (This is simply to beg the question "What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who has more faith and absent in the one who had less faith?)



Arminians don't talk in terms of qualities & attributes present in one who chooses to follow Christ over one who does not. We assume the potential for both choices lies in everyone. Therefore the point is moot.

[seer]

I have run this thread on a number of sites, and no Arminian has been able to answer it. Perhaps you could be the first! (Be ware though, many many have tried.)


Here's the question:
"What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who uses his free will to choose for God, but absent in the one who uses his free will to choose against God?"

In your attempted answer, try to avoid a question which begs an equivalent question. For example, avoid answers like "one had more faith than the other". (This is simply to beg the question "What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who has more faith and absent in the one who had less faith?)

I can only speak for myself. I was in jail facing 40 years for two counts of armed robbery - I called out for God, and God showed up...

[Colossians]

Kevin Wayne,

Arminians don't talk in terms of qualities & attributes present in one who chooses to follow Christ over one who does not. We assume the potential for both choices lies in everyone. Therefore the point is moot.
Why is it one's choice is for infinite bliss, and the other's for infinite torture?
Was one smarter than the other? More gifted than the other?
Did one prefer torture?

[Colossians]

seer,

I can only speak for myself. I was in jail facing 40 years for two counts of armed robbery - I called out for God, and God showed up...
This is to beg an equivalent question.
"Why is it you called out for God, but others in the same situation did not?"

[seer]

seer,

I can only speak for myself. I was in jail facing 40 years for two counts of armed robbery - I called out for God, and God showed up...
This is to beg an equivalent question.
"Why is it you called out for God, but others in the same situation did not?"

Well just about everybody that was facing the time I was did. I don't know what happen to them. I was agnostic at the time, but kind of reached back to my catholic upbringing. And if you think about it Colossians, God would not have not needed my crime to bring me to repentance. If Calvinism was true God could have regenerated me before I came to a life of crime.

[Colossians]

Seer,

Well just about everybody that was facing the time I was did.
This still doesn't answer the question. There are many who do not call out to God. You need to tell us why some do, and others instead choose eternal torture in hell.

And if you think about it Colossians, God would not have not needed my crime to bring me to repentance. If Calvinism was true God could have regenerated me before I came to a life of crime.
You should assume up front that I have thought about it: I was an Arminian previously.
If you take your point to its logical conclusion, then God should have regenerated everybody before they sinned at all, in which case they would not have to be regenerated.
Sin is necessary in order that you might be forgiven, and so love God. Thus "He that is forgiven much, loveth much". Thus your 'greater' crime/sin was a blessing in disguise for you. It was the very thing God saw necessary to bring you to Him.



So back to the question you have not answered.

[yxboom]

Here's the question:
"What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who uses his free will to choose for God, but absent in the one who uses his free will to choose against God?"
When you can answer this question you should find your answer.

What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who is elected for God to choose her, but absent in the one who isn't elected and for God not to choose her?

[Ormly]

Very simple, one was reprobate and the other wasn't.

.... end of my participation in this.

Orm

[Xmansmommy]

I have run this thread on a number of sites, and no Arminian has been able to answer it. Perhaps you could be the first! (Be ware though, many many have tried.)

Hello Colossians. Would there be an answer that would suffice? If so, you might find this (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=46515) thread helpful. Many have attempted to address this issue on many occasions. It's simply that I've never seen the answers be sufficient for any Calvinist. :shrug:


Here's the question:
"What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who uses his free will to choose for God, but absent in the one who uses his free will to choose against God?"

I'd have to agree with Kevin here. Everyone has potential.

In your attempted answer, try to avoid a question which begs an equivalent question. For example, avoid answers like "one had more faith than the other". (This is simply to beg the question "What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who has more faith and absent in the one who had less faith?)

In short my answer is this: The reason each has come to faith in Christ varies. Many factors influence our choices regarding faith. Environment, personality traits, upbringing, spiritual experience, geography, past choices......and the list goes on and on. The common reason we find many don't choose to exhibit faith is lack of evidence.

Ask a bunch of Calvinists what events lead them to Christ and you'll find that circumstances will play just as important a role in their conversion as anyone elses. I would venture to guess that not all Calvinists came to God the very first time God drew them. :wink:

[Calvinist4Him]

Arminians don't talk in terms of qualities & attributes present in one who chooses to follow Christ over one who does not. We assume the potential for both choices lies in everyone. Therefore the point is moot.

Way to not answer the question, and beg the question, what is your basis for assuming everyone has the potential?

[Calvinist4Him]

Well just about everybody that was facing the time I was did. I don't know what happen to them. I was agnostic at the time, but kind of reached back to my catholic upbringing.

Thus far, you havn't answered the question.

And if you think about it Colossians, God would not have not needed my crime to bring me to repentance.

Fair enough, but why isn't everyone repenting, why do some repent and others harden their hearts further?

If Calvinism was true God could have regenerated me before I came to a life of crime.

:lol: So you're saying that God couldn't have regenerated you before you turned to a life of crime?

My goodness, all this talk, and still no answer to the OP.

[Calvinist4Him]

When you can answer this question you should find your answer.

What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who is elected for God to choose her, but absent in the one who isn't elected and for God not to choose her?

Election is based on Him who calls, it's based on underserved mercy, undeserved love, election is based on God's will and pleasure. If election were left in the hands of men, we would choose sin rather than Christ every time. The question cannot be turned around back on the Calvinist in the way you suppose.

[Ormly]

If election were left in the hands of men, we would choose sin rather than Christ every time.




Only the reprobate choose sin everytime.

[Bill the Cat]

Here's the question:
"What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who uses his free will to choose for God, but absent in the one who uses his free will to choose against God?"

Free will. It's that simple. As Joshua said "Choose you now whom you serve" We choose whom we serve.

[micah4]

Seer,
Sin is necessary in order that you might be forgiven, and so love God.


That seems like a pretty speculative assertion to hang such a weighty conclusion on, namely, that sin is "necessary".

Does this mean that the angels which didn't sin can't possibly love God, since apparently it's necessary to be forgiven in order to love?

[smaller]

I hate to stick up for the "Arminians" BUT one obvious answer here is that you can take the SUM TOTAL of all human thoughts which may very well include the thoughts of crying out to God and all of these sum total thoughts STILL would not equal the purity and finery of a SINGLE THOUGHT or Word of God.

So within a larger Sovereign Construct many things might be "possible" and the sum of all of those "possibilities" STILL would not be a hinderance upon God and can be something that "could just happen." You see the Calvinist alternative (and they will deny this) is that every single thing and thought is FROM GOD and of course not even they can handle that possibility even though it is really what they believe.

The Calvin arrogance in these matters of Sovereignty amounts to this:

God is Sovereign AND we know exactly what The Sovereign God thinks, does and why he does it.

Do you see the logical fallacy in Calvinism? It's a plain as the nose on your face. IF you conceed to Sovereignty you also conceed that God's Thought Forms are so far beyond yours that YOU CANNOT LIMIT HIM to what "you" think!

Calvinism is a human's self imposed limit and construct on what a Sovereign God WILL do.

I say there are a world full of possibilities for God and that entire world full of possibilities will STILL not equal one Pure Gold Word of God, and that Calvinism is just one of many 'remote possibilities' but certainly not one as far as I can see personally BECAUSE their position violates SIMPLE LOGIC!

The fact that thought forms exist that are NOT issued from God is a fairly easily provable situation in the scriptures AND if so, then thoughts of hope and love can certainly issue from within men that are in and of themselves and those are associative to God because of who He Is, Love.

It is a portion of relief for the minds and hearts of mankind to be exposed to the thoughts and Words of God. It is a form of release and this "exposure" shows us how "locked into our own individual subjectivity" we all really ARE and we really are all tryiong to reach our way out of that individual subjectivity into a more free area, that being Him as Eternal Father.

enjoy!

smaller

[micah4]

Election is based on Him who calls, it's based on underserved mercy, undeserved love, election is based on God's will and pleasure. If election were left in the hands of men, we would choose sin rather than Christ every time. The question cannot be turned around back on the Calvinist in the way you suppose.

Nifty. So it's appropriate for you to simply deny that the question is valid, but for some reason this same answer doesn't satisfy you when the Arminian gives it.

The question is not valid, because it implicitly assumes determinism- the calvinist is looking for some quality or aspect of a persons "nature" which can be said to cause them to choose one way or the other. This is precisely what indeterminism denies, so the question is not valid.

But since you didn't like YXBoom's reverse formulation for the calvinist, perhaps the calvinist could answer the question framed this way:


"What was the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which was present (or absent) in Adam which led to him choosing to sin rather than choosing to obey God?"


That I think is a perfectly valid question that can well rightly be "turned back around" on the Calvinist.

[Calvinist4Him]

Free will. It's that simple. As Joshua said "Choose you now whom you serve" We choose whom we serve.

Free will (in the libertarian sense) is the reason the question cannot be turned back on Calvinism. It's not that simple. If everyone has free will, and Christ made it possible for anyone to be saved, why did you choose Christ, while other people rejected Him?

To respond with "free will", is to attempt to give the appearance of answering the question without actually answering the question.

[Kevin Wayne]

Kevin Wayne,

Arminians don't talk in terms of qualities & attributes present in one who chooses to follow Christ over one who does not. We assume the potential for both choices lies in everyone. Therefore the point is moot.
Why is it one's choice is for infinite bliss, and the other's for infinite torture?
Was one smarter than the other? More gifted than the other?
Did one prefer torture?



The Bible does not give us enough information to know.

[Champagne]

Under Calvinism, does God really elect people based solely upon his will and pleasure? But what is the determining factor as to what is going to give him pleasure?

Is it really complete randomness? If it's not based upon anything in the person, any merit or what have you, isn't it totally arbitrary? That God says "eenie meenie minie moe" or something?

It doesn't make sense. There has to be SOME basis upon which he is choosing.

[Kevin Wayne]

Way to not answer the question, and beg the question, what is your basis for assuming everyone has the potential?

The fact that God created them as autonomous human beings.

[smaller]

Under Calvinism, does God really elect people based solely upon his will and pleasure? But what is the determining factor as to what is going to give him pleasure?

Is it really complete randomness? If it's not based upon anything in the person, any merit or what have you, isn't it totally arbitrary? That God says "eenie meenie minie moe" or something?

It doesn't make sense. There has to be SOME basis upon which he is choosing.

There are billions upon billions of human flies on the dartboard of the world, and God throws billions upon billions of darts, and if one doesn't "get you" God says, "hmmmmm. I think I'll save this one for later." (Calvinist Grace at work)

Divine Lotto is a legitimate question for Calvinists. Are people saved by A Divine Gambling System?

[Calvinist4Him]

Nifty. So it's appropriate for you to simply deny that the question is valid, but for some reason this same answer doesn't satisfy you when the Arminian gives it.

It's a question that applies assuming free will, and one that doesn't apply not assuming free will.

The question is not valid, because it implicitly assumes determinism- the calvinist is looking for some quality or aspect of a persons "nature" which can be said to cause them to choose one way or the other. This is precisely what indeterminism denies, so the question is not valid.

The question does not assume determinism when asked by a Calvinist to a non-Calvinist. The Calvinist assumes the other person's position for the sake of asking the question. Calvinism acknowledges that there is "nothing good" in man, that all deserve the wrath of God, and without God's sovereign merciful choice, all will receive the wrath of God. Again,

Inderterminism denies that some people are more intelligent than others? Inderterminism denies that some people have a better disposition than others? Indeterminism denies that some people are wiser than others?

Again, the question is nonesense within a compatibilist/determinist framework which affirms total depravity, but quite valid within a libertarian free will framework, where man is quite capable of doing good.

[Calvinist4Him]

Under Calvinism, does God really elect people based solely upon his will and pleasure? But what is the determining factor as to what is going to give him pleasure?

Is it really complete randomness? If it's not based upon anything in the person, any merit or what have you, isn't it totally arbitrary? That God says "eenie meenie minie moe" or something?

It doesn't make sense. There has to be SOME basis upon which he is choosing.

Champagne, you do realize you're in Theist only territory? :nono:

[Ormly]

The question does not assume determinism when asked by a Calvinist to a non-Calvinist. The Calvinist assumes the other person's position for the sake of asking the question. Calvinism acknowledges that there is "nothing good" in man, that all deserve the wrath of God,

Why do they deserve it and why do you assume, in light of scripture that gives testimony to the fact you are wrong, they deserve it? Mind you I said
deserve and not inherit, so don't try to bulldose me with alot Calvinist pap. Try to make that distinction.

[dreamaccount200]

I have run this thread on a number of sites, and no Arminian has been able to answer it. Perhaps you could be the first! (Be ware though, many many have tried.)


Here's the question:
"What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who uses his free will to choose for God, but absent in the one who uses his free will to choose against God?"

In your attempted answer, try to avoid a question which begs an equivalent question. For example, avoid answers like "one had more faith than the other". (This is simply to beg the question "What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who has more faith and absent in the one who had less faith?)

This is how the bible answers:
13:1
The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.

13:2
And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.

13:3
And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

13:4
And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

13:5
Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:

13:6
And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

13:7
And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:

13:8
But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

*****************
Now Calvinist for him said
Election is based on Him who calls, it's based on underserved mercy, undeserved love, election is based on God's will and pleasure. If election were left in the hands of men, we would choose sin rather than Christ every time. The question cannot be turned around back on the Calvinist in the way you suppose.


In other words he does not know. Its the mystery of God. Calvinist always appeal to the mystery of God when they cannot answer a question.

And here is what Jesus said about the Parable:13:18
Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

13:19
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

13:20
But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

13:21
Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

13:22
He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

13:23
But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

[Kevin Wayne]

The Calvin arrogance in these matters of Sovereignty amounts to this:

God is Sovereign AND we know exactly what The Sovereign God thinks, does and why he does it.

Do you see the logical fallacy in Calvinism? It's a plain as the nose on your face. IF you conceed to Sovereignty you also conceed that God's Thought Forms are so far beyond yours that YOU CANNOT LIMIT HIM to what "you" think!




Well I think most Calvinists would agree they don't have a real answer for why one person is saved but the other isn't. The problem comes when they try to play cute little rhetorical games like this to get on "Arminians" for agreeing also, there is no real answer.

As if Arminianism is the only alternative to Calvinism, but that’s' a different topic altogether.


I wonder if we can safely say that since no Calvinist has responded to my Council of Orange thread, that we have something else they can't answer?

[micah4]

Inderterminism denies that some people are more intelligent than others? Inderterminism denies that some people have a better disposition than others? Indeterminism denies that some people are wiser than others?


Indeterminism denies that these factors sufficiently determine men's moral choices.


Again, the question is nonesense within a compatibilist/determinist framework which affirms total depravity


Actually, that's the only place the question does make sense. Under that framework, Man's nature is the quality which sufficiently determines that he will reject God, and God's irresistible grace sufficiently determines that he will choose God.

but quite valid within a libertarian free will framework, where man is quite capable of doing good.

If you assert that the difference in validity of the question is "total depravity", then you have to answer the question as it applies to Adam, where total depravity does not apply. I notice that you declined to address that.

[yxboom]

Election is based on Him who calls, it's based on underserved mercy, undeserved love, election is based on God's will and pleasure. If election were left in the hands of men, we would choose sin rather than Christ every time.
Great non-answer. All you did was quote your James White flash card. What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in an individual that makes God choose whom He does? besides, if you don't like the way I worded it, fine than why the non-answer to micah's reformulation?

The question cannot be turned around back on the Calvinist in the way you suppose.
IOW you don't like it when we play these stupid Calvinist games? Just answer the question.

[smaller]

Well I think most Calvinists would agree they don't have a real answer for why one person is saved but the other isn't.

The constructs for these various forms of "guesswork" is amazing. If you really got down to it, as a friend of mine said many years ago, that he could prove that he was the only person who was going to be "saved." I could not disagree. The salvation sifter can get pretty fine when you start throwing in all the "you cannot be my disciple" requirements, lay down you life, leave your home and family etc etc etc ad nauseam.


The problem comes when they try to play cute little rhetorical games like this to get on "Arminians" for agreeing also, there is no real answer.

I think the presumptions that the entire question/construct revolves around may be severely in error. If God IS Sovereign then everything that IS must in some way "serve" the Greater Position. It is in what those ways are that severe presumptive mistakes can be made.


As if Arminianism is the only alternative to Calvinism, but that’s' a different topic altogether.

Thank God that is not the case.


I wonder if we can safely say that since no Calvinist has responded to my Council of Orange thread, that we have something else they can't answer?

I would propose that in the final analysis Christians can separate themselves from one another over A SINGLE WORD. This is just a fact that comes with the territory of "christianity" and I don't really think this fact has changed much from day one.

go figure.

[yxboom]

The constructs for these various forms of "guesswork" is amazing. If you really got down to it, as a friend of mine said many years ago, that he could prove that he was the only person who was going to be "saved." I could not disagree.
That is because your friend was right.

[smaller]

That is because your friend was right.

Using his own measuring stick upon himself I don't think I would have figured myself assured in any meaningful way other than in and of myself.

What good is the arrogance of self assurance if within same it contains the potential of self deception?

[Ormly]

God can anything He desires and He desires to do it with those who will do it with Him. He foreknows who they are. It is those He elects, as in "selects".

[Meh_Gerbil]

Gentlemen:

When it comes to G_d and His knowledge having questions we cannot answer is a sign of a healthy understanding of the gap that separates the created from the Creator.

This is one question I cannot answer out of about a hundred -- however, the fact I cannot answer a question is no reason to dumb G_d down to a level that I can wrap my mind around.

[yxboom]

Using his own measuring stick upon himself I don't think I would have figured myself assured in any meaningful way other than in and of myself.
and that is why i think your friend was right.


What good is the arrogance of self assurance if within same it contains the potential of self deception?
however realistically any degree of self assurance lends itself to an equal degree (if not more) of self deception.

[yxboom]

God can anything He desires and He desires to do it with those who will do it with Him. He foreknows who they are. It is those He elects, as in "selects".
you forgot to take your meds again?

[Ormly]

you forgot to take your meds again?

In what regard? What did you find difficult to understand?

[smaller]

and that is why i think your friend was right.


however realistically any degree of self assurance lends itself to an equal degree (if not more) of self deception.


heh heh heh.

Agreed! Self assurance is worthless IMHO.

If God's Word has promised me that whatever measure I use upon others will be used upon me, am I then justified by measuring ALL PEOPLE as "safe & secure?"

heh heh heh.

And mad gerbil, excellent point! How much less so then should we be reluctant to step onto the ground of eternal damnation of other people unto (insert your own favorite form of torture/annihiulation)

Most "christian" disputes are just like these continual contemplations between Calvinists and Arminians. Why are most not saved? I say the entire question/debate may have a severely errant basis coupled with severely errant question handlers.

[yxboom]

heh heh heh.

Agreed! Self assurance is worthless IMHO.
rightly so.

If God's Word has promised me that whatever measure I use upon others will be used upon me, am I then justified by measuring ALL PEOPLE as "safe & secure?"

heh heh heh.
religious loophole if you ask me.


And mad gerbil, excellent point! How much less so then should we be reluctant to step onto the ground of eternal damnation of other people unto (insert your own favorite form of torture/annihiulation)

Most "christian" disputes are just like these continual contemplations between Calvinists and Arminians. Why are most not saved? I say the entire question/debate may have a severely errant basis coupled with severely errant question handlers.
but than universalism is too easy.

[Harfelugan]

Here's the question:
"What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who uses his free will to choose for God, but absent in the one who uses his free will to choose against God?"

In your attempted answer, try to avoid a question which begs an equivalent question. For example, avoid answers like "one had more faith than the other". (This is simply to beg the question "What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who has more faith and absent in the one who had less faith?)
Eph. 2:8 For by grace you have been saved by faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. The life of goodness that regeneration produces has been prepared for believers to "do" from all eternity. There is no fundmental quality/characteristic/attribute present to cause one to choose God or not to choose God. Faith isn't something you can produce but a trustful response produced by the Holy Spirit. From that point God allows the individual to make the choice to accept or reject Him by their freewill. The fact that a person rejects God at that point has more to do with their inability to submit their freewill to God than whether they have believing faith. {By the way, have you stopped beating your wife?}

[smaller]

rightly so.


religious loophole if you ask me.

I work in a world of legal contracts so I tend to read the "fine print...;)"


but than universalism is too easy.

That's the beauty of Christian Universalism. You can still play the eternal damnation card on others, just not directly...but vicariously...;) "They" hate that...;)

Jesus said it best:

John 5:22
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son

John 12:47
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

I find these types of constructs from the mouth of God to be very hard to break...don't you?

[Kevin Wayne]

The question in the OP runs along similar lines to one twohumble posed to me in the endless thread on Election that Chappie started. I hunted up the following from groundhog day of last year:

Beginning of excerpt dated 02/02/04:
__________



I must ask you what I asked Chappie long ago. How do you disengage yourself from a sense of "you deserve salvation, earned it, or are more righteous than others" when you think you "chose" it of your own free will, and others reject it of their own will? I would love your take on this question.




Certainly.


First off, keep in mind that the classic Arminian position does not support the idea that "free will" is automatically available to us without the prior work of the Spirit. Arminius went to some lengths to clarify his position on this. I used to have his response saved to my favorites, but I've since lost that, so if I can find it again I'll be sure and post it to you. But Oden's book also, will help you in distinguishing the various theological positions.


As far as the issue of "deserving" salvation, Jesus himself I think broke this impasse when he stated:




Luk 17:7 But who is there among you, having a servant plowing or keeping sheep, that will say, when he comes in from the field, 'Come immediately and sit down at the table,'
Luk 17:8 and will not rather tell him, 'Prepare my supper, clothe yourself properly, and serve me, while I eat and drink. Afterward you shall eat and drink'?
Luk 17:9 Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded? I think not.
Luk 17:10 Even so you also, when you have done all the things that are commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy servants. We have done our duty.'"





Here we see two things: One is that those who are servants of God respond to his commands. There must be an active involvement in their responding. But two, the "Master" doesn't hand us any compliments for it and we don't go around acting as if we deserve it. That’s something that only comes through a relationship with God, and not theological constraints. I have noted many (not all) Calvinists to not carry much of a spirit of humility which seems to undermine their assertion that a high-determinist theology is necessary for true Christian humility.


But if lack of humility is a problem, we would recommend with James:


Jam 4:6 But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, "God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble."
Jam 4:7 Be subject therefore to God. But resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
Jam 4:8 Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double minded.
Jam 4:9 Lament, mourn, and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to gloom.
Jam 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he will exalt you.

------------------------

End of excerpt dated 02/02/04



Now that last passage does give a distinction between those who receive grace and those who do not: proud & humble. Matt 25 adds good steward & bad steward, foolish & wise, sheep & goats. But are these FUNDMENTAL qualities (as in Colossians’ original question), or simply what they are called as a result of their decision? We don’t know.

[yxboom]

That's the beauty of Christian Universalism. You can still play the eternal damnation card on others, just not directly...but vicariously...;) "They" hate that...;)

Jesus said it best:

John 5:22
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son

John 12:47
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

I find these types of constructs from the mouth of God to be very hard to break...don't you?
i will admit i walked into that one.

[smaller]

i will admit i walked into that one.

It was these types of statements from Jesus that "caused" me to reconsider my long dearly held "doctrinal" positions AND gave me some great tools in the process to dismantle phony constructs by listening closely to His Words...;)

He is The Consumate Chess Master and I cannot help but to bow to His Words with unfeigned adoration.

[john-philip]

I have run this thread on a number of sites, and no Arminian has been able to answer it. Perhaps you could be the first! (Be ware though, many many have tried.)


Here's the question:
"What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who uses his free will to choose for God, but absent in the one who uses his free will to choose against God?"

In your attempted answer, try to avoid a question which begs an equivalent question. For example, avoid answers like "one had more faith than the other". (This is simply to beg the question "What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who has more faith and absent in the one who had less faith?)

People usually don't get many answers to loaded questions.

Have you stopped beating your dog yet?

[Bill the Cat]

Free will (in the libertarian sense) is the reason the question cannot be turned back on Calvinism. It's not that simple. If everyone has free will, and Christ made it possible for anyone to be saved, why did you choose Christ, while other people rejected Him?

Same reason I don't like Brussel Sprouts, but my daughters love them. Choice.

To respond with "free will", is to attempt to give the appearance of answering the question without actually answering the question.

It is the answer. You are asking the eternal question "why?" I can ask you forever regardless of your response, why? Free will is what it is, the reason we can choose.

[john-philip]

It is the answer. You are asking the eternal question "why?" I can ask you forever regardless of your response, why? Free will is what it is, the reason we can choose.

What's even worse than continually asking 'why' is asking 'why' with a false pressuposition. Like, "why haven't you stopped beating your dog"? The pressuposition to the question in the OP assumes compatibilism. The question isn't even addressing libertarian free will. :no:

[Calvinist4Him]

The fact that God created them as autonomous human beings.

Adam and Eve were created as theonomous human beings with the freedom to disobey. What you're suggesting is absurd.

[Kevin Wayne]

Adam and Eve were created as theonomous human beings with the freedom to disobey. What you're suggesting is absurd.

No, what I'm suggesting is self-evident.

What your suggesting is philosophical gobbledygook.

[Calvinist4Him]

No, what I'm suggesting is self-evident.

What your suggesting is philosophical gobbledygook.

What I'm suggesting is biblical. What your suggesting is not even Theism, but Deism. This is not to say that Deism cannot work it's way into the thinking of Theists.

Based on your second statement, I have doubts that you understand the terminology you used.

[Kevin Wayne]

What I'm suggesting is biblical. What your suggesting is not even Theism, but Deism. This is not to say that Deism cannot work it's way into the thinking of Theists.

Based on your second statement, I have doubts that you understand the terminology you used.


Philosophical gobbledygook? No I understand it quite well, thank-you...

[Calvinist4Him]

Philosophical gobbledygook? No I understand it quite well, thank-you...

:lol: You used the philosophical term "autonomous", and then proceeded to label my thoughts in response as philosophical gobbledy gook. What a neat slight of hand. God bless you too brother!

[Kevin Wayne]

:lol: You used the philosophical term "autonomous", and then proceeded to label my thoughts in response as philosophical gobbledy gook. What a neat slight of hand. God bless you too brother!


So do we live in a polytheistic Buddhist world where God is "all in all" and his creation is not independent of him?

[yxboom]

Adam and Eve were created as theonomous human beings with the freedom to disobey.
Sounds to me like they possessed freewill.

What you're suggesting is absurd.
what is absurd is suggesting Adam and Eve had freewill and deny their autonomity.

[dreamaccount200]

This is how the bible answers:
13:1
The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.

13:2
And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.

13:3
And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

13:4
And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

13:5
Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:

13:6
And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

13:7
And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:

13:8
But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

*****************
Now Calvinist for him said


In other words he does not know. Its the mystery of God. Calvinist always appeal to the mystery of God when they cannot answer a question.

And here is what Jesus said about the Parable:13:18
Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

13:19
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

13:20
But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

13:21
Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

13:22
He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

13:23
But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Any comment?

[Calvinist4Him]

Sounds to me like they possessed freewill.

They were governed by God, and He expected them to obey His command (why would He give them a command they could not obey?).

what is absurd is suggesting Adam and Eve had freewill and deny their autonomity.

Human autonomy was a result a consequence of the fall...we are born autonomous...we are autonomous by default...Theonomy is a result a consequence of the new birth.

[Kevin Wayne]

Any comment?


I thought it was good.

[Kevin Wayne]

Human autonomy was a result a consequence of the fall...we are born autonomous...we are autonomous by default...Theonomy is a result a consequence of the new birth.


Then you agree... God creates humans to be autonomous.

[john-philip]

That's the first time I've ever heard a calvinist imply that we have free will until regeneration. :lol:

[dreamaccount200]

I thought it was good.

Thanks Kevin, I was hoping some of our Calvinist friends would respond to. At least it answers this question imo..
They have yet to answer theirs

[Calvinist4Him]

Then you agree... God creates humans to be autonomous.

No, you misunderstand what I'm saying. God didn't create humans to be automomous, autonomy is the result of man's abuse of the freedom God gave him. God is responsible for administering the "curse" of sin, which results in autonomy, but has never directly created an autonomous human being, an autonomous human being would be self-governed, acknowledging self as the ultimate authority, resisting the real ultimate authority of their Creator. God created the potential for autonomy, when He gave His creatures a limited amount of freedom.

[Kevin Wayne]

No, you misunderstand what I'm saying. God didn't create humans to be automomous, autonomy is the result of man's abuse of the freedom God gave him. God is responsible for administering the "curse" of sin, which is autonomous, but has never directly created an autonomous human being, an autonomous human being would be self-governed, acknowledging self as the ultimate authority, resisting the real ultimate authority of their Creator. God created the potential for autonomy, when He gave His creatures a limited amount of freedom.



Then who continues to create humans... in their autonomous state?


Btw, it might help if I clarified the defintion of autonomy that I'm using:


Main Entry: au·ton·o·my
Pronunciation: -mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -mies
1 : the quality or state of being independent, free, and self-directing
2 : independence from the organism as a whole in the capacity of a part for growth, reactivity, or responsiveness

[Calvinist4Him]

Then who continues to create humans... in their autonomous state?

Do I really need to answer that question? Oh man...umm...humans create humans.


Btw, it might help if I clarified the defintion of autonomy that I'm using:


Main Entry: au·ton·o·my
Pronunciation: -mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -mies
1 : the quality or state of being independent, free, and self-directing
2 : independence from the organism as a whole in the capacity of a part for growth, reactivity, or responsiveness

I think the following is a better definition, especially with respect to what I mean by autonomy:

au·ton·o·my (ô-tŏn'ə-mē) pronunciation
n., pl. -mies.

1. The condition or quality of being autonomous; independence.
2.
1. Self-government or the right of self-government; self-determination.
2. Self-government with respect to local or internal affairs: granted autonomy to a national minority.
3. A self-governing state, community, or group.

[Greek autonomiā, from autonomos, self-ruling. See autonomous.]
au·ton'o·mist n.

The reason I used the word "absurd" is because it would be absurd for God to create a human being to be independent of Him. I see where you confused what I said with Pantheism, but when I talk about Theonomy, I do not even have Pantheism in mind. It's a gross misunderstanding to confuse Theonomy with Pantheism. God did create human beings independent of Him physically, but what does being made in the image of God entail? Did He create human beings to reason independent of His existence? Did He create human beings to rule over the earth, independant of His authority over humans?

When I use the word autonomy, I use it in the Van Tillian sense of the word, which is more in line with the definition I provided.

[Kevin Wayne]

Ok, well now we are playing "dueling quotes from Dictionary.com" here. There is no "better or worse definition of a word as far as I can see. There's only what you mean and what I mean.


And I invoked Pantheism to ask to give room for the idea that God created something that can function seperatley from himself, and he did. That's quite apart from suggesting they were ever Thenomous, which I never did.


Did he create humans to be independent of him and rule the Earth independently? Maybe not in intent, but the potential is there.

[Calvinist4Him]

Ok, well now we are playing "dueling quotes from Dictionary.com" here. There is no "better or worse definition of a word as far as I can see. There's only what you mean and what I mean.

I am a Van Tillian, both Dr. Van Til and Dr. Bahnsen used both terms (autonomy and Theonomy) frequently in their writings and lectures. When I use the term, I mean it in the sense in which they used it.

And I invoked Pantheism to ask to give room for the idea that God created something that can function seperatley from himself, and he did. That's quite apart from suggesting they were ever Thenomous, which I never did.

By invoking Pantheism, you introduced a strawman. I didn't say that you suggested they were Theonomous.

Did he create humans to be independent of him and rule the Earth independently? Maybe not in intent, but the potential is there.

Answer my questions first.

[Colossians]

AN INITIAL NOTE TO MY FELLOW CALVINISTS:
Once again the Arminians have craftily turned a defence into an offence, and we find Calvinists defending their own position, instead of insisting that the Arminians defend theirs.
Arminians are slippery like this, this is why I have posted this thread.


I assure you fellow Calvinists that if you continue to press the Arminian to provide the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS OMMISSION in their scheme of things, they will fail. I also assure you that part of their failing will be temptation to quote the previous sentence and respond with a witty quip instead of simply satisfying us with the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS OMMISSION.

So hang in their fellow Calvinists: get them to answer the question and nothing else.


Responses follow:



Yxboom,
What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who is elected for God to choose her, but absent in the one who isn't elected and for God not to choose her?
This thread puts the Arminian position on trial. So back to you to answer the question.




Ormly,
Very simple, one was reprobate and the other wasn't.
Why?




Xmans,
In short my answer is this: The reason each has come to faith in Christ varies. Many factors influence our choices regarding faith. Environment, personality traits, upbringing, spiritual experience, geography, past choices......and the list goes on and on. The common reason we find many don't choose to exhibit faith is lack of evidence.
You are still begging the question.
Why is it some are affected by their circumstances to choose for God, and others not?




Billthe Cat,
Free will. It's that simple.
You have begged the question again. Why is it one uses his free will to obtain eternal bliss, and the other eternal damnation? Why the infinite discrepancy?
Was one smarter or nicer than the other?



Micah4,
So it's appropriate for you to simply deny that the question is valid, but for some reason this same answer doesn't satisfy you when the Arminian gives it.
Your not used to defending your position are you. If your Arminianism is correct (free will and all that) you should be able to tell us why one chooses for an infinite benefit and another for infinite disbenefit.

The question is not valid, because it implicitly assumes determinism
It doesn’t assume anything. It simply asks you to provide a reason for 2 infinitley disparate results.
If you think it presumes determinism, perhaps that is because you intuitively feel such might be necessary to answer the question.



Clavinist4Him,
To respond with "free will", is to attempt to give the appearance of answering the question without actually answering the question.
Precisely.




KevinWayne,
The Bible does not give us enough information to know.
Yes it does. You need to find it. It’s there.
But there is a bigger problem: why you haven’t thought about this before.




Champagne,
Under Calvinism, does God really elect people based solely upon his will and pleasure? But what is the determining factor as to what is going to give him pleasure?
This thread is not an examination of Calvinism. It is an opportunity to prove that your Arminianism has the answer.




Kevin Wayne,
The fact that God created them as autonomous human beings.
Again you beg the question. Why is it one autonomous being chose for God, and the other fellow an incredibly bad decision?




Calvinist4Him,
The question does not assume determinism when asked by a Calvinist to a non-Calvinist.
…the question is …. quite valid within a libertarian free will framework, where man is quite capable of doing good.
Quite true.



DreamAccount,
This is how the bible answers:
And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them…
But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
Begging the question: “what is the quality present in one and absent in the other, that makes him good ground and not bad ground?”




Micah
If you assert that the difference in validity of the question is "total depravity", then you have to answer the question as it applies to Adam,
The question is not to us, but to you, so it is irrelevant what we assert. Do you admit you cannot answer it yet?




Ormly,
God can anything He desires and He desires to do it with those who will do it with Him.
Begging the question: “why is it some desire to cooperate, and others not? What is the characterstic/quality present in the cooperative one, and absent in the other, that makes him cooperative?”




Mad Gerbil,
When it comes to G_d and His knowledge having questions we cannot answer is a sign of a healthy understanding of the gap that separates the created from the Creator.
It is rather a sign you can’t answer the question.






Roger Anderson,
There is no fundmental quality/characteristic/attribute present to cause one to choose God or not to choose God.
So what creates the difference? Is it random?
The fact that a person rejects God at that point has more to do with their inability to submit their freewill to God than whether they have believing faith.
So why does one have the ability, and another not?




Kevin Wayne,
Now that last passage does give a distinction between those who receive grace and those who do not: proud & humble. Matt 25 adds good steward & bad steward, foolish & wise, sheep & goats. But are these FUNDMENTAL qualities (as in Colossians’ original question), or simply what they are called as a result of their decision? We don’t know.
Another admits he can’t answer it.





BilltheCat,
Same reason I don't like Brussel Sprouts, but my daughters love them. Choice.
So you choose to not love Brussel Sprouts, and your daughters choose to love them. Strange.
Why don’t you also choose to love Brussel Sprouts. It would make dinner time a little less complicated wouldn’t it?
But, as I have shown you, you have, like the others, begged the question.

Free will is what it is, the reason we can choose.
We are not talking about the ability to choose, but why one chooses an eternal benefit, and another an eternal disbenefit.






John Phillip,
The question isn't even addressing libertarian free will.
Yes it does. Most precisely. The question simply asks you to provide a reason for the disparate result, given that one result is infinitely bad, and the other infinitely good. You need to answer it.

[dreamaccount200]

AN INITIAL NOTE TO MY FELLOW CALVINISTS:
Once again the Arminians have craftily turned a defence into an offence, and we find Calvinists defending their own position, instead of insisting that the Arminians defend theirs.
Arminians are slippery like this, this is why I have posted this thread.


I assure you fellow Calvinists that if you continue to press the Arminian to provide the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS OMMISSION in their scheme of things, they will fail. I also assure you that part of their failing will be temptation to quote the previous sentence and respond with a witty quip instead of simply satisfying us with the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS OMMISSION.

So hang in their fellow Calvinists: get them to answer the question and nothing else.


Responses follow:



Yxboom,
What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who is elected for God to choose her, but absent in the one who isn't elected and for God not to choose her?
This thread puts the Arminian position on trial. So back to you to answer the question.




Ormly,
Very simple, one was reprobate and the other wasn't.
Why?




Xmans,
In short my answer is this: The reason each has come to faith in Christ varies. Many factors influence our choices regarding faith. Environment, personality traits, upbringing, spiritual experience, geography, past choices......and the list goes on and on. The common reason we find many don't choose to exhibit faith is lack of evidence.
You are still begging the question.
Why is it some are affected by their circumstances to choose for God, and others not?




Billthe Cat,
Free will. It's that simple.
You have begged the question again. Why is it one uses his free will to obtain eternal bliss, and the other eternal damnation? Why the infinite discrepancy?
Was one smarter or nicer than the other?



Micah4,
So it's appropriate for you to simply deny that the question is valid, but for some reason this same answer doesn't satisfy you when the Arminian gives it.
Your not used to defending your position are you. If your Arminianism is correct (free will and all that) you should be able to tell us why one chooses for an infinite benefit and another for infinite disbenefit.

The question is not valid, because it implicitly assumes determinism
It doesn’t assume anything. It simply asks you to provide a reason for 2 infinitlye disparate results.
If you think it presumes determinism, perhaps that is because you intuitively feel such might be necessary to answer the question.



Clavinist4Him,
To respond with "free will", is to attempt to give the appearance of answering the question without actually answering the question.
Precisely.




KevinWayne,
The Bible does not give us enough information to know.
Yes it does. You need to find it. It’s there.
But there is a bigger problem: why you haven’t thought about this before.




Champagne,
Under Calvinism, does God really elect people based solely upon his will and pleasure? But what is the determining factor as to what is going to give him pleasure?
This thread is not an examination of Calvinism. It is an opportunity to prove that your Arminianism has the answer.




Kevin Wayne,
The fact that God created them as autonomous human beings.
Again you beg the question. Why is it one autonomous being chose for God, and the other fellow an incredibly bad decision?




Calvinist4Him,
The question does not assume determinism when asked by a Calvinist to a non-Calvinist.
…the question is …. quite valid within a libertarian free will framework, where man is quite capable of doing good.
Quite true.



DreamAccount,
This is how the bible answers:
And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them…
But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
Begging the question: “what is the quality present in one and absent in the other, that makes him good ground and not bad ground?”




Micah
If you assert that the difference in validity of the question is "total depravity", then you have to answer the question as it applies to Adam,
The question is not to us, but to you, so it is irrelevant what we assert. Do you admit you cannot answer it yet?




Ormly,
God can anything He desires and He desires to do it with those who will do it with Him.
Begging the question: “why is it some desire to cooperate, and others not? What is the characterstic/quality present in the cooperative one, and absent in the other, that makes him cooperative?”




Mad Gerbil,
When it comes to G_d and His knowledge having questions we cannot answer is a sign of a healthy understanding of the gap that separates the created from the Creator.
It is rather a sign you can’t answer the question.






Roger Anderson,
There is no fundmental quality/characteristic/attribute present to cause one to choose God or not to choose God.
So what creates the difference? Is it random?
The fact that a person rejects God at that point has more to do with their inability to submit their freewill to God than whether they have believing faith.
So why does one have the ability, and another not?




Kevin Wayne,
Now that last passage does give a distinction between those who receive grace and those who do not: proud & humble. Matt 25 adds good steward & bad steward, foolish & wise, sheep & goats. But are these FUNDMENTAL qualities (as in Colossians’ original question), or simply what they are called as a result of their decision? We don’t know.
Another admits he can’t answer it.





BilltheCat,
Same reason I don't like Brussel Sprouts, but my daughters love them. Choice.
So you choose to not love Brussel Sprouts, and your daughters choose to love them. Strange.
Why don’t you also choose to love Brussel Sprouts. It would make dinner time a little less complicated wouldn’t it?
But, as I have shown you, you have, like the others, begged the question.

Free will is what it is, the reason we can choose.
We are not talking about the ability to choose, but why one chooses an eternal benefit, and another an eternal disbenefit.






John Phillip,
The question isn't even addressing libertarian free will.
Yes it does. Most precisely. The question simply asks you to provide a reason for the disparate result, given that one result is infinitely bad, and the other infinitely good. You need to answer it.
The question has already been answered but no Clavinist had responed

[Kevin Wayne]

I am a Van Tillian, both Dr. Van Til and Dr. Bahnsen used both terms (autonomy and Theonomy) frequently in their writings and lectures. When I use the term, I mean it in the sense in which they used it.



Well I'm not Van Tillian, so there you go...


By invoking Pantheism, you introduced a strawman. I didn't say that you suggested they were Theonomous.



My reference to Pantheism was in regards to responding to the overall question of God's Sovereignty and Human Independence. It's quite legitmte to be albe to zero on on what something is by eliminating what it is not.


Answer my questions first.


I asked my own question and then answered it.

[Colossians]

Dreamaccount,

An attempted answer is not an answer if it is wrong.
I have pointed out to you that your particular answer did not answer the question, but begged it.

I think that deep down inside you realise this.

As to your idea that the Calvinist is supposed to answer a question on a thread questioning the Arminian position, that's just driving home the fact that you have not answered it.

[Kevin Wayne]

LOL Colossians, I won't spend any time respoding on behalf of the whole non-reformed memebers of this thread, but on my own behalf I would just like to say I've heard most of the Calvinistic old saws before and I have thought of these things. Bet on it.

[john-philip]

John Phillip,
The question isn't even addressing libertarian free will.
Yes it does. Most precisely. The question simply asks you to provide a reason for the disparate result, given that one result is infinitely bad, and the other infinitely good. You need to answer it.

Hi Colossians. You have begged the question, and loaded your own. You asked, in essence, what character trait or attribute allowed for one person to choose Christ over the one who chose damnation. You have assumed that the choice must be necessitated or based on a character trait, and in doing so, have pressuposed compatibilism while concurrently not addressing libertarian free will. Your question, then, is logically fallacious. Accordingly, you aren't going to get very many "answers".

[dreamaccount200]

Dreamaccount,

An attempted answer is not an answer if it is wrong.
I have pointed out to you that your particular answer did not answer the question, but begged it.

I think that deep down inside you realise this.

As to your idea that the Calvinist is supposed to answer a question on a thread questioning the Arminian position, that's just driving home the fact that you have not answered it.

Please give me the post number where you responded to the scripture I provided. I would love to read it.

[Colossians]

Kevin Wayne,
I've heard most of the Calvinistic old saws before and I have thought of these things. Bet on it.
Good for you Kevin. Now give us the answer rather than blocking out your own realisation that you haven’t.


John Philip,
You have assumed that the choice must be necessitated or based on a character trait, and in doing so, have pressuposed compatibilism while concurrently not addressing libertarian free will. Your question, then, is logically fallacious.
You are in denial, sticking your proverbial fingers in your ears and blocking out the obvious.
I have made it as wide as possible for you to move by providing “characteristic/attribute/characteristic”.
The intent is clear: tell us why the difference. Your asserting that my basing the question on character traits is narrow and preemptive, is simply a straw man.
You need to answer the question at the generic level, rather than this woeful attempt at smoke-screening.

If you don’t like the idea of attributes, provide an alternative. Whatever you use, tell us why the infinitely disparate result between two creatures created by God for the purpose of receiving an eternal benefit with Him.

[Kevin Wayne]

Kevin Wayne,
I've heard most of the Calvinistic old saws before and I have thought of these things. Bet on it.
Good for you Kevin. Now give us the answer rather than blocking out your own realisation that you haven’t.



I answered you. We answered you. You won't accept our answers because they aren't YOUR answers.

[Colossians]

You and I both know you won't accept the fact that you simply have begged the question rather than answer it.
If I ask you "why is a car a machine?" and you answer "because it is not a non-machine", no answer has been given.
This is what you have done.

[john-philip]

John Philip,
You have assumed that the choice must be necessitated or based on a character trait, and in doing so, have pressuposed compatibilism while concurrently not addressing libertarian free will. Your question, then, is logically fallacious.
You are in denial, sticking your proverbial fingers in your ears and blocking out the obvious.
I have made it as wide as possible for you to move by providing “characteristic/attribute/characteristic”.
The intent is clear: tell us why the difference. Your asserting that my basing the question on character traits is narrow and preemptive, is simply a straw man.
You need to answer the question at the generic level, rather than this woeful attempt at smoke-screening.

If you don’t like the idea of attributes, provide an alternative. Whatever you use, tell us why the infinitely disparate result between two creatures created by God for the purpose of receiving an eternal benefit with Him.

I wasn't smoke-screening. Many calvinists have argued by assuming compatibilism and loading it into the objection. I can't even begin to address your question if it is logically fallacious. If anyone were to answer the question, they would be assuming compatibilism.

For example, let's say Jones chooses X and Smith chooses ~X when placed in the same scenario. Let's say X was some good decision, like, helping an old woman accross the street. In this case, what you would want to know is why Jones chose to help the woman accross the street and Smith did not choose so. Let's say that Jones has an attribute of helpfulness. He is known to help others very often. Let's say Smith has an attribute of selfishness. That he has not once committed an altruistic act, and that he only thinks of himself. You, as a compatibilist, would then want to assign Jones' action of X to his attribute of helpfulness, and Smith's decision of ~X to his attribute of selfishness.

But should you? Is it logically impossible for Jones to choose ~X and Smith choose X when placed in the exact same scenario? Let's say, lo and behold, this does happen. What is the explanation? Clearly, you would have a problem. Jones' action, while perhaps influnced by his helpfulness was not necessitated by it.

You have a problem on your hands. In the LFW scheme, Jones' decision was not based on anything within him other than his will indeterminately choosing X and then choosing ~X. There is no basis to assume that he chose the action based on an attribute or character trait or anything other than his will: to ask 'why' is to deny indeterminism and assert compatibilism.

To ask for a causally determinate explanation of any indeterminate event, is to ask a loaded (AKA, complex) question, and thusly, is logically fallacious.

[Kevin Wayne]

You and I both know you won't accept the fact that you simply have begged the question rather than answer it.
If I ask you "why is a car a machine?" and you answer "because it is not a non-machine", no answer has been given.
This is what you have done.


LOL Sure Colossians, keep up the self-delusions.

[yxboom]

[b]AN INITIAL NOTE TO MY FELLOW CALVINISTS:
Once again the Arminians have craftily turned a defence into an offence, and we find Calvinists defending their own position, instead of insisting that the Arminians defend theirs.
Arminians are slippery like this, this is why I have posted this thread.


I assure you fellow Calvinists that if you continue to press the Arminian to provide the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS OMMISSION in their scheme of things, they will fail. I also assure you that part of their failing will be temptation to quote the previous sentence and respond with a witty quip instead of simply satisfying us with the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS OMMISSION.
you realize you are a moron and this thread is glaring proof of it.

[dreamaccount200]

Please give me the post number where you responded to the scripture I provided. I would love to read it.
Am I to assume that you did not respond?

[Zxcv Bnm]

Here's the question:
"What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who uses his free will to choose for God, but absent in the one who uses his free will to choose against God?"The answer: Nothing.

Your question projects an unbiblical position onto a group of people who do not hold to it: that a person's quality, characteristic, or attribute provides the cause of his will to choose for or against God.

I believe such an argument is called "straw man".

I think you meant to ask: What causes one to choose for God, and another to choose against God?

Calvinists are fortunate to have an easy answer: God causes a person to choose for God, and a person's sinful desires causes him to choose against God.

The Armenian answer is more convoluted, but not necessarily unbiblical:

God gives a will to man.
God allows man to exercise that will within well defined boundaries.
God establishes a covenant with man: one of blessings for obedience, and curses for disobedience.
God "draws" all men to belief and obedience (but does not force).
God allows each man to choose to accept or to reject His "drawing".
God responds to each person according to his choice, just as He sovereignly promised in His covenant.
Calvinists seem to have a tendency to read into this answer more than is warranted, though, for example:

Calvinist: Man's will compromises God's sovereignty.
Response: I disagree. Who sovereignly gave man a will, and established the boundaries to it? (not man).

Calvinist: Man's will compromises Soli Deo Gloria & gives credit to man for his salvation (Synergy argument).
Response: I disagree. Who established the covenant? (not man).

Calvinist: Degenerate man is unable to choose for God without God.
Response: I agree. Who "draws"? (not man).

Calvinist: Man's will manipulates God.
Response: According to whose covenant? (not God's).

Calvinist: Man's will thwarts God's plan.
Response: I believe God would have given the same for those who love Him, regardless of how many love Him. What is God's plan, that it could be thwarted by man's choice to "opt in" or to "opt out"? (not God's).

To respond with "free will", is to attempt to give the appearance of answering the question without actually answering the question.Oh yeah...

Calvinist: No Armenian has been able to explain "free will".
Response: The implied implication of this argument asserts that the ability (or inability) of anybody to explain the "will" somehow proves (or disproves) its existence or its effects.

[dreamaccount200]

The answer: Nothing.

Your question projects an unbiblical position onto a group of people who do not hold to it: that a person's quality, characteristic, or attribute provides the cause of his will to choose for or against God.

I believe such an argument is called "straw man".

I think you meant to ask: What causes one to choose for God, and another to choose against God?

Calvinists are fortunate to have an easy answer: God causes a person to choose for God, and a person's sinful desires causes him to choose against God.

The Armenian answer is more convoluted, but not necessarily unbiblical:

God gives a will to man.
God allows man to exercise that will within well defined boundaries.
God establishes a covenant with man: one of blessings for obedience, and curses for disobedience.
God "draws" all men to belief and obedience (but does not force).
God allows each man to choose to accept or to reject His "drawing".
God responds to each person according to his choice, just as He sovereignly promised in His covenant.
Calvinists seem to have a tendency to read into this answer more than is warranted, though, for example:

Calvinist: Man's will compromises God's sovereignty.
Response: I disagree. Who sovereignly gave man a will, and established the boundaries to it? (not man).

Calvinist: Man's will compromises Soli Deo Gloria & gives credit to man for his salvation (Synergy argument).
Response: I disagree. Who established the covenant? (not man).

Calvinist: Degenerate man is unable to choose for God without God.
Response: I agree. Who "draws"? (not man).

Calvinist: Man's will manipulates God.
Response: According to whose covenant? (not God's).

Calvinist: Man's will thwarts God's plan.
Response: I believe God would have given the same for those who love Him, regardless of how many love Him. What is God's plan, that it could be thwarted by man's choice to "opt in" or to "opt out"? (not God's).

Oh yeah...

Calvinist: No Armenian has been able to explain "free will".
Response: The implied implication of this argument asserts that the ability (or inability) of anybody to explain the "will" somehow proves (or disproves) its existence or its effects.

Great post

[Kevin Wayne]

Zxcv Bnm, good job in taking pretty much the same concepts I was trying to get at and re-stating them, and actually getting to a few points I haven't managed to address as well. Not that I'm saying you're getting all that from me, mind you. I think the truths therein are pretty self-eveident.

Now if our Calvinst detractors put aside the need to win long enough to carefully and thoughtfully digest everything we've said so far, some understanding might be created.

By everything I also mean the thread Xmansmommy linked to.

[Zxcv Bnm]

Great postThanks.

BTW, I think Colossians response to your Bible verse post is on # 67, where he says, DreamAccount,
This is how the bible answers:
And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them…
But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
Begging the question: “what is the quality present in one and absent in the other, that makes him good ground and not bad ground?”

And I agree with him that an answer such as "Our choice causes our will..." or "Our will causes our will..." does indeed beg the question.

The problem with the OP question, though, is that it is formed on a straw man in order to receive answers that beg the question. I guess that's what's meant by "a loaded question".

[Harfelugan]

Roger Anderson,
There is no fundmental quality/characteristic/attribute present to cause one to choose God or not to choose God.
So what creates the difference? Is it random?
The fact that a person rejects God at that point has more to do with their inability to submit their freewill to God than whether they have believing faith.
So why does one have the ability, and another not?

2 Cor. 7: 10 For godly sorrow produces repentance unto salvation not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. Godly sorrow creates the difference. Yet it isn't an attribute created from within ourselves that one person can have more and another have less of, and it isn't an attribute that God just puts into the heart of one man but not put it into the heart of another so it isn't random. Rom.2:8 says that neither the one having the ability to submit his freewill to God or the one who refuses to submit his freewill to God will affect the salvation that God is offering because it is by grace the free gift of God. And when you finally get to the point where you enlighten us with your great insight we can will have a parade in your honor and become calvinists too. Come on already were waiting!!!

[micah4]

AN INITIAL NOTE TO MY FELLOW CALVINISTS:
Once again the Arminians have craftily turned a defence into an offence, and we find Calvinists defending their own position, instead of insisting that the Arminians defend theirs.


Shame how things like that tend to happen when you set out on the attack with such a weak strategy while leaving your own gates wide open. I can assure you though, there's been very little craftiness required in order to turn the tides on this "assault".


Micah4,
So it's appropriate for you to simply deny that the question is valid, but for some reason this same answer doesn't satisfy you when the Arminian gives it.
Your not used to defending your position are you.


Well, with opposition like this, who needs to worry about defense?


If your Arminianism is correct (free will and all that) you should be able to tell us why one chooses for an infinite benefit and another for infinite disbenefit.


If the logic behind this statement were correct, then you should be able to tell us why God chooses one for infinite benefit and another for infinite disbenefit. The fact that you can't demonstrates either that your position is wrong, or the logic behind this "if you are correct...you should be able to explain why..." is wrong. So either you've abandoned your calvinism, or you're demanding that Arminians should acquiesce to a logical construction which you yourself reject. Why should we concede to you the logical coherence of a question which you've already rejected?



The question is not valid, because it implicitly assumes determinism.

It doesn’t assume anything. It simply asks you to provide a reason for 2 infinitley disparate results. If you think it presumes determinism, perhaps that is because you intuitively feel such might be necessary to answer the question.


That is correct. To answer the question "which character attribute caused A to choose Y?" is impossible to answer unless the choice, Y, has been causally determined by some character attribute. Therefore it is in fact necessary to assume compatibilism in order to answer "which" attribute "caused" the choice. But then you've just skipped over the "if" question- is choice Y causally determined by some character attribute? If the answer is NO, then the question "WHICH character attribute causally determined the choice" is, as has been pointed out, the analog of asking "WHY haven't you stopped beating your wife yet?". The answer is of course, I haven't stopped beating my wife BECAUSE i never was beating my wife. And NO character attribute causally determined the choice, because the choice is not causally determined by character attributes. I hope that you would surprise me by demonstrating enough honesty to recognize this.




Micah
If you assert that the difference in validity of the question is "total depravity", then you have to answer the question as it applies to Adam,
The question is not to us, but to you, so it is irrelevant what we assert.


If it's irrelevant what you assert, then why do you seem so concerned about what you're asserting?

You're suggesting that the question is unanswerable, and that this is some sort of horrible problem, obviously implying it is a problem which dooms Arminianism so that Calvinism must emerge as the "victor". If you didn't believe this, then you wouldn't be getting so excited about trying to prove it, because it is obvious where your predispositions lie. If the question is as much (or more) of a problem for the Calvinist as it is for the Arminian, then it's silly to make a big fuss over the fact that arminians can't answer this sort of question, when you can't either. Your logic is like this: "Arminianism can't explain Y, therefore calvinism is correct". OBVIOUSLY it is relevant to the soundness of this logical inference whether calvinism can explain Y. If neither position can explain Y (or a group of similar problems, Y'), then it's simply irrelevant. Calvinists can't explain why God chose to make the sky blue, but then neither can Arminians. So what? If answering the "dilemmas" implied by this sort of question is not a problem for the Calvinist, then go ahead and answer the questions posed and remove all doubt so that you can establish the relevance of this "problem" for the Arminian. If you can''t answer them, then I see that it is safe to conclude that this so called "problem" is irrelevant.



Do you admit you cannot answer it yet?


The question cannot be answered within the parameters you've allowed because the parameters are faulty. I think we've "admitted" that several times over.

Calvinists can't explain why aoetu tslcga aeouaoue snthe nlclcg oaelth ateosu llecogloeau, therefore arminianism is correct. Do you admit that you can't explain this?

[Ormly]

Two are standing there in eternity. One is reprobate while the other isn't. Which one will God choose to reveal Himself unto a saving righteousness? Which one will He choose to reveal His glory in unrighteousness, as Pharoah did?

[yxboom]

Two are standing there in eternity. One is reprobate while the other isn't. Which one will God choose to reveal Himself unto a saving righteousness? Which one will He choose to reveal His glory in unrighteousness, as Pharoah did?
yellow.

[yxboom]

Shame how things like that tend to happen when you set out on the attack with such a weak strategy while leaving your own gates wide open. I can assure you though, there's been very little craftiness required in order to turn the tides on this "assault".



Well, with opposition like this, who needs to worry about defense?



If the logic behind this statement were correct, then you should be able to tell us why God chooses one for infinite benefit and another for infinite disbenefit. The fact that you can't demonstrates either that your position is wrong, or the logic behind this "if you are correct...you should be able to explain why..." is wrong. So either you've abandoned your calvinism, or you're demanding that Arminians should acquiesce to a logical construction which you yourself reject. Why should we concede to you the logical coherence of a question which you've already rejected?




That is correct. To answer the question "which character attribute caused A to choose Y?" is impossible to answer unless the choice, Y, has been causally determined by some character attribute. Therefore it is in fact necessary to assume compatibilism in order to answer "which" attribute "caused" the choice. But then you've just skipped over the "if" question- is choice Y causally determined by some character attribute? If the answer is NO, then the question "WHICH character attribute causally determined the choice" is, as has been pointed out, the analog of asking "WHY haven't you stopped beating your wife yet?". The answer is of course, I haven't stopped beating my wife BECAUSE i never was beating my wife. And NO character attribute causally determined the choice, because the choice is not causally determined by character attributes. I hope that you would surprise me by demonstrating enough honesty to recognize this.





If it's irrelevant what you assert, then why do you seem so concerned about what you're asserting?

You're suggesting that the question is unanswerable, and that this is some sort of horrible problem, obviously implying it is a problem which dooms Arminianism so that Calvinism must emerge as the "victor". If you didn't believe this, then you wouldn't be getting so excited about trying to prove it, because it is obvious where your predispositions lie. If the question is as much (or more) of a problem for the Calvinist as it is for the Arminian, then it's silly to make a big fuss over the fact that arminians can't answer this sort of question, when you can't either. Your logic is like this: "Arminianism can't explain Y, therefore calvinism is correct". OBVIOUSLY it is relevant to the soundness of this logical inference whether calvinism can explain Y. If neither position can explain Y (or a group of similar problems, Y'), then it's simply irrelevant. Calvinists can't explain why God chose to make the sky blue, but then neither can Arminians. So what? If answering the "dilemmas" implied by this sort of question is not a problem for the Calvinist, then go ahead and answer the questions posed and remove all doubt so that you can establish the relevance of this "problem" for the Arminian. If you can''t answer them, then I see that it is safe to conclude that this so called "problem" is irrelevant.




The question cannot be answered within the parameters you've allowed because the parameters are faulty. I think we've "admitted" that several times over.

Calvinists can't explain why aoetu tslcga aeouaoue snthe nlclcg oaelth ateosu llecogloeau, therefore arminianism is correct. Do you admit that you can't explain this?
pearls yo.

[Colossians]

John Philip,
For example, let's say Jones chooses X and Smith chooses ~X when placed in the same scenario. Let's say X was some good decision, like, helping an old woman accross the street. In this case, what you would want to know is why Jones chose to help the woman accross the street and Smith did not choose so. Let's say that Jones has an attribute of helpfulness. He is known to help others very often. Let's say Smith has an attribute of selfishness. That he has not once committed an altruistic act, and that he only thinks of himself. You, as a compatibilist, would then want to assign Jones' action of X to his attribute of helpfulness, and Smith's decision of ~X to his attribute of selfishness.
But should you? Is it logically impossible for Jones to choose ~X and Smith choose X when placed in the exact same scenario?
Of course it isn’t. The scenario is unique in its occurrence in time. Your idea is logically silly: you have said it might have been possible for the each to choose what they did not choose.

The fact is, we have an infinitely disparate result of benefit between two people each made supposedly to be able to achieve the positive benefit, which disparate result is irreversible once realised.
You need to tell us the cause.





Zxcv,
The answer: Nothing.
So it is random? No cause?
God made Fred and Bill. Fred chooses for Him and gets an eternal benefit, and Bill chooses against Him and gets a might uncomfortable eternity, and there is no reason?
I think you are in denial.


The problem with the OP question, though, is that it is formed on a straw man in order to receive answers that beg the question. I guess that's what's meant by "a loaded question".
There is no straw man is asking why one chooses one way, and another another way.
If you don’t like “attribute/quality/characteristic” in the question, tell us how a man can divorce himself from his such attributes when he makes a decision. Your idea is tantamount to telling us he steps out of his own skin when he makes a decision.





Micah4,
The question cannot be answered within the parameters you've allowed because the parameters are faulty.
No that’s just your denial coming through.
If you don’t like the parameters, just use some other ones. Your implied “paramaters are faulty” is a straw man in lieu of your providing us with an explanation of how a man can make a decision divorced from his own attributes.
But if you don’t like “attributes” in the equation, use something else.

You are fully aware that the question does not hinge specifically on attributes, but focusses on ultimate cause.
So cease from straw-men building, and provide the cause.

[micah4]

Micah4,
The question cannot be answered within the parameters you've allowed because the parameters are faulty.
No that’s just your denial coming through.
If you don’t like the parameters, just use some other ones.


Col, we've given you your answer already, you just haven't liked what you've heard. You say "use some other" parameters, but when we do, you seem to pretend you just haven't heard.

There is no universal attribute held in common between all men who receive God's grace and all those who reject it; nor is there any reason to suppose that there should be. This doesn't mean that there is no reason why; men always have reasons. But as is seen in the parable of the sower which has been addressed already, the reasons are different for different people. If you've ever talked to more than 2 or 3 unbelievers you should have no trouble recognizing this.

So far you haven't demonstrated that you're even paying attention to what has been written. You certainly haven't interacted in any meaningful fashion with the responses which have been written. If you were genuinely interested in hearing an answer, you've gotten plenty already. OTOH, If you are simply perched waiting for any block of text to appear so that you can dismiss it with a wave of your hand- without any desire to actually see if perhaps there is actually any validity to the answers to your question- and your only real desire is to create an opportunity to gloat in your assumption of glaringly obvious superiority, then that would be a very sad way to approach the search for truth. Are you here to learn, or are you just here to boost your ego? Do you suppose that you have all the answers and that you're only here to benefit us by your enlightened teaching? If so, then why do you dismiss our questions with disdain? A teacher would instruct, not evade.

[Zxcv Bnm]

Colossians, I believe the will is an inherent part of the mind, a non-physical part of our being. I believe the will is the cause of our choices, after the effects of other "influences" have been considered by the mind. If you want an explanation of the will, then you're looking in the wrong place. If you are putting the Armenian on trial, as you claim, then you still need to explain how the answer (or non-answer) of your question proves (or disproves) anything?

[Kevin Wayne]

Are you here to learn, or are you just here to boost your ego? Do you suppose that you have all the answers and that you're only here to benefit us by your enlightened teaching? If so, then why do you dismiss our questions with disdain? A teacher would instruct, not evade.


That's been the problem with almost every Calvinist I have encountered. An a priori assunption of correctness, and a self-assured belief that they are here to set the rest of us straight.


IF they truly believe that God is infinite, and beyond our comprehension, then at least an admission that they could possibly be dead wrong is in order. But what seems to emerge is a picture of those who either:


1) Are afraid that such an admission will eventually lead to the downfall of thier belief system and/or-


2) Are afraid that such an admission will take the edge of what they teach and allow us to (gasp!) remain Arminian.



The fact of the matter is, their posturing proves they don't have the Spirit of God on their side in these matters (by that I don't so much mean thier correctness in doctrine, as much as their assumption that someone else needs to change thier doctrine.)


However, I am so convinced as sure as there is a keyboard on my lap this very minute, that the Spirit of God has been poured out in ABUNDANCE among the Non-Reformed. If so, it would seem they need to do the about-face that Peter did when he was shown the formerly unclean and bid to take and eat. Which is to accept God's servants for who they are.

[john-philip]

John Philip,
For example, let's say Jones chooses X and Smith chooses ~X when placed in the same scenario. Let's say X was some good decision, like, helping an old woman accross the street. In this case, what you would want to know is why Jones chose to help the woman accross the street and Smith did not choose so. Let's say that Jones has an attribute of helpfulness. He is known to help others very often. Let's say Smith has an attribute of selfishness. That he has not once committed an altruistic act, and that he only thinks of himself. You, as a compatibilist, would then want to assign Jones' action of X to his attribute of helpfulness, and Smith's decision of ~X to his attribute of selfishness.
But should you? Is it logically impossible for Jones to choose ~X and Smith choose X when placed in the exact same scenario?
Of course it isn’t. The scenario is unique in its occurrence in time. Your idea is logically silly: you have said it might have been possible for the each to choose what they did not choose.

Your language here honestly worries me for engaging in a discussion with you. Your statement that my scenario is silly because "it might have been possible for each to choose what they did not choose" makes me wonder where you are at, philosophically with respect to this discussion. I don't, however, wish to make any assumptions about you. We need to at least make sure we are on par with each others terminology, otherwise things will become really frustrating. I'm not trying to extablish these things to be antagonozing, but I'm not going to do all the work if you want to continue to offer short responses to what I say.

In order for you to critique LFW and Arminianism, you will need to at least show that you have a good understanding of what we assert that LFW entails. Can you offer me a definition that I would agree upon? Right now you keep asserting compatibilistic assertions (unkowingly) into the mix. Next, do you understand the differences between logical necessity, logical impossibility, and logical contigency? The latter is much of the basis behind what I assert for the choice in question in the scenario.

The fact is, we have an infinitely disparate result of benefit between two people each made supposedly to be able to achieve the positive benefit, which disparate result is irreversible once realised.
You need to tell us the cause.

As was shown in my analogy, the agent is what caused the choice. There was nothing that causally determined him to make the choice.

[Colossians]

Micah,

Col, we've given you your answer already, you just haven't liked what you've heard.
No you’ve only begged the question, as we shall see again in your next sentence I quote below.


But as is seen in the parable of the sower which has been addressed already, the reasons are different for different people.
There you go again, begging the question. You don’t seem to understand the question.
Here you tell us there are different reasons for one choosing hell and another heaven.
This does not answer the question: we now ask you “why is the one who reasons for hell in possession of infinitely inferior reasoning than the one who chooses for heaven? Why is he the shmuck with the inferior reason?”
(All you have done is beg the question with different words. But don’t worry, you get a lolly pop if you come back to me with yet another version of the question-begged.)





Zxcv,
I believe the will is the cause of our choices, after the effects of other "influences" have been considered by the mind.
So tell us why it is that one is in possession of influences that result in a decision for infinite benefit, and another in possession of influences that result in a decision for infinite disbenefit. Who’s responsible?

If you want an explanation of the will, then you're looking in the wrong place.
You can say that again.

If you are putting the Armenian on trial, as you claim, then you still need to explain how the answer (or non-answer) of your question proves (or disproves) anything?
No I don’t. What is needed is for you to answer the question, or else come clean with yourself by admitting that you can’t.



John Philip,
As was shown in my analogy, the agent is what caused the choice. There was nothing that causally determined him to make the choice.
This is a cop-out.
There is a reason for each choice made, and for the quality thereof, otherwise free will has no meaning.
You need to tell us why two creatures made to supposedly attain to eternal life, make decisions of infinite disparity of result.

[yxboom]

If you are putting the Armenian on trial, as you claim, then you still need to explain how the answer (or non-answer) of your question proves (or disproves) anything?
No I don’t. What is needed is for you to answer the question, or else come clean with yourself by admitting that you can’t.
Congrats. You've just graduated from moron to blithering idiot.

From the get go you were told that within the parameters you built the question can not be sufficiently answered. So take the lollipop out of your ear and get a clue. this whole goal line dancing of yours is asinine. you haven't won some ridiculous debate, you have only shown yourself an incompetent buffoon.

before you cry, "ad hominem" rest assure I answered your question befitting a troll.

[micah4]

As was shown in my analogy, the agent is what caused the choice. There was nothing that causally determined him to make the choice.
This is a cop-out.


Col, you demonstrate with each new post a new level of boneheadedness.

We've answered your question a hundred times now, and you just donkey-headedly say "I don't like that answer", then gripe that we won't answer your question.

I'm with boom; at this point ad hominems do not seem to be a fallacious attack so much as a clear statement of fact.


There is a reason for each choice made


Which is exactly what I told you a post or two back. A causal agent having a reason for initiating some action is not the same as the reason causing the action. Nor is there any reason to suppose that there is a universally common reason among all agents who choose to initiate similar actions.

If you would actually read any of our posts we wouldn't have to keep repeating ourselves. But perhaps expecting you to display comprehension is as reasonable as expecting a donkey to perform algebra.



You need to tell us why two creatures made to supposedly attain to eternal life, make decisions of infinite disparity of result.

We've told you already, and you've made no demonstration that our answer is incorrect other than expressing your own personal displeasure with the answer, which is fine with me.

I have no further desire to repeat myself endlessly, and I have no idea what you think you're achieving with this thread. If you think you're proving something to the Arminians, it's obvious that the only thing your proving to others is certain negative traits about yourself. Maybe you think you're proving to yourself how right you are, which seems silly since your mind is obviously already made up.

If you want to dialogue any more I suggest you start by demonstrating a willingness to at least try to comprehend what has already been written and actually interact with it on a level somewhat beyond that of a bratty three year old who doesn't like the answer "no" when his mom tells him he can't have a piece of candy. You can lie on your tummy and kick your legs all you want, and pout until you're red in the face; it's not going to result in us giving you a different answer than what we've already given you.

[john-philip]

John Philip,
As was shown in my analogy, the agent is what caused the choice. There was nothing that causally determined him to make the choice.
This is a cop-out.

Most of what I would like to have said was addressed by Micah (pearls to him!) but I would like to add a few things. Colossians, you have shown yourself to be uneducated and incapable of interacting with the level of dialouge presented before you. That's not even meant as an insult, but rather a prodding in the direction of constructive dialouge - which you have refused to engage in. I suggest you go pick up a book or at least humble your attitude and try to comprehend something. The responses you have been getting are not worthy of someone who wishes to act like a lazy, ignorant, troll.

Bluntly stated, you need to get off your lazy youknowwhat and present an argument. Your dogmatic assertions are an embarrsment to you as well as the rest of calvindom.

There is a reason for each choice made, and for the quality thereof, otherwise free will has no meaning.

Yup. You haven't shown how that's in dispute, though, and have not interacted with anyone's points regarding indeterminism. Arminians believe it is entirely logically possible for anyone to choose otherwise with regards to salvation, and that fact alone shows that your question is nonsensical. People who chose salvation could have chosen otherwise - it was entirely logically possible - and if they had, they still would have been the same human being, so there was no characteristic that caused them to make the choice. Insisting there must be not only begs the question, but asks the Arminian to accept the antithesis to LFW.

You need to tell us why two creatures made to supposedly attain to eternal life, make decisions of infinite disparity of result.

I'm sure it upsets you greatly to find out that your question is non-sensical and loaded and has no bearing against LFW, but it's better to accept it now than to keep looking like an uneducated troll. Two agents make two different decisions with respect to salvation because they use their will to indeterminately do so, and it was entirely possible for them to not have. To continue to ask for a determinate reason is begging the question, but you will not acknowledge it until you at least attempt to comprehend one of the posts in this thread.

[themuzicman]

Here's the question:
"What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who uses his free will to choose for God, but absent in the one who uses his free will to choose against God?"


You're assuming that the differece is a quality/characteristic/attribute, when, in fact, it is not. You're importing your own theology into someone else's system, which is invalid.

The difference, in the end, is free will. Certainly the personality and life expereince and present circumstances and the nature of the presentation of the gospel to that person all have impact into whether that individual hears and learns the teaching of God, but in the end, it is the free will of the individual to admit first that they are a sinner without hope and under eternal condemnation, and second that hope and salvation are found in Christ and that they wish to accept the free gift of salvation by grace offered by God to all men, and choose to believe.

That's the answer.

Michael

[Xmansmommy]

Here's the question:
"What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who uses his free will to choose for God, but absent in the one who uses his free will to choose against God?"

If I had to give a specific answer as to why some choose for and some against I would suggest humility and pride. And what makes a person humble or prideful? How they respond to the different life experiences already listed. :teeth:

[Kevin Wayne]

If I had to give a specific answer as to why some choose for and some against I would suggest humility and pride. And what makes a person humble or prideful? How they respond to the different life experiences already listed. :teeth:


Romans 1 supports this. We are not made of a "static" chemistry that never changes with time & experience. We reject God, he gives us over to depravity (Ro 1:18-32). On the other hand, "John 12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become sons of light."


I really wonder if quantum physics may not be the answer...

[smaller]

My dear fellow believers.

If one does not believe it is because they are blinded by the "god of this world." (2 Cor. 4:2)

This blinding is not by the will's of men NOR The Will of God but the resisting WILL of the devil.

Now you can blame the will's of men and you can blame The Will of God,

BUT HOW IS IT THAT NONE OF YOU CAN BLAME THE REAL CAUSE OF UNBELIEF!!!???

Get a clue and buy yourself a WOW!

enjoy!

smaller

[Furor]

In answer to the question posed by the OP, I would say that the variable is "environment."

Of course, I don't know anything about the debate, or either side of the debate, or even that it's a debate worth having in any practical, Christian, world-helping sense. So take this answer as you will.

The variable is environment.

[infide]

If I had to give a specific answer as to why some choose for and some against I would suggest humility and pride. And what makes a person humble or prideful? How they respond to the different life experiences already listed. :teeth:

Which are themselves libertarianly free events, and I agree entirely.

"God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble".

peace,
jd

[infide]

Romans 1 supports this. We are not made of a "static" chemistry that never changes with time & experience. We reject God, he gives us over to depravity (Ro 1:18-32). On the other hand, "John 12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become sons of light."

Interesting indeed, considering perhaps that Christ enlightens every man that comes into the world (john 1:9). Because, it seems to me that Jesus specifically meant in John 12 that He is the light in his incarnation. But certainly, His light goes forth spiritually in every age, and especially in this Church age through the spiritual incarnation in belivers. If God gives the light of illumination through Christ in the Church to every man, and every man has the opportunity to believe while they have that light, then an application of John 12:36 to all men, and not just those who lived in 1st century Israel, makes intuitive sense and lends itself directly to Arminianism and Prevenient Grace.

I really wonder if quantum physics may not be the answer...

it is not promising, imho, but some have attempted that route. It seems to me that human moral agency needs to be more than mere randomness. And in QT, it seems all we got is mere randomness.

If I act morally or trust in Christ because some quantum particle happenned to bounce in favor of that am I any more responsible for that action than the guy whose particles led him not to?

it seems to me that free moral agency is a unique and powerful kind of indeterminism.

peace,
jd

[geebob]

In your attempted answer, try to avoid a question which begs an equivalent question.

Your question begs the question.

There prior to the the decision, there is nothing about the sinner nor the repentent that distinguishes one from the other. They both have the quality of being able to refuse God's grace and they both have the ability enabled by God to accept his grace. The difference doesn't come till after the decision.

To deny this is simply to refuse to deal with libertarian free will as it is defined. And if you won't deal with it as it is, you certaintly can't refute it.

[A-Man]

One resisted the Holy Spirit, another didn't.


Isaiah 63:10
Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them.

Matthew 12:32
And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Acts 7:51
"You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit."

[Spiderman&Co.]

....A causal agent having a reason for initiating some action is not the same as the reason causing the action. Nor is there any reason to suppose that there is a universally common reason among all agents who choose to initiate similar actions.

Could you expand on this thought. Perhaps a scenario in which a causal agent had a reason for doing something, but the reason was not the cause?

I agree that there is no universal reason common to all agents - choice is very complex. However, your statement about reasons not being "causal" certainly caught my attention, b/c this has been my primary philosophical objection to indeterminism (i.e. choice seems to reduce to a causeless "free will" which is not determined by anything, ala reasonless, random, and abstract.)

[geebob]

(i.e. choice seems to reduce to a causeless "free will" which is not determined by anything, ala reasonless, random, and abstract.)

free choices are always caused. nothing happens in a vaccuum. (there is always a person, he must be delibertating, the deliberation must be conducive to more than one choice and so on). The freedom is not in the lack of a cause, it's in the ability of the cause to have more than one fully possible effect.

It's true that there is nothing about the cause that guarantees one effect and not the other, but either effect, whic ever one is choosen will have the same grounds for it's attainment.

[Spiderman&Co.]

free choices are always caused. nothing happens in a vaccuum. (there is always a person, he must be delibertating, the deliberation must be conducive to more than one choice and so on). The freedom is not in the lack of a cause, it's in the ability of the cause to have more than one fully possible effect.

It's true that there is nothing about the cause that guarantees one effect and not the other, but either effect, whic ever one is choosen will have the same grounds for it's attainment.

1. First, perhaps I have missunderstood the philosophical parameters of indeterminism, but my impression has always been that Indeterminism is called "Indeterminism" because there is a belief that a choice cannot be free if it is causally determined by things like environment, heredity, etc. Hence, if all choices are "always caused" as you say then they are determined and we move into some sort of combatibilism (i.e. choices are caused, but that does not make them any less "free.")

2. Secondly, how can one cause bring about two different effects? (A concrete example of this happening might help me get my mental arms around it.) Does this not violate the traditional sense of cause-and-effect? Perhaps in answering this you will be addressing my first point.

[Duder]

Very simple, one was reprobate and the other wasn't.

.... end of my participation in this.

Orm

You are wise to flee!

[geebob]

1. First, perhaps I have missunderstood the philosophical parameters of indeterminism, but my impression has always been that Indeterminism is called "Indeterminism" because there is a belief that a choice cannot be free if it is causally determined by things like environment, heredity, etc. Hence, if all choices are "always caused" as you say then they are determined and we move into some sort of combatibilism (i.e. choices are caused, but that does not make them any less "free.")

your mistaking causal determinism with the mere suggestion that all things are caused. your reading determinism into the concept of cause. causal determinism here might be simplified to mean that any specific cause has only one possible outcome. causal indeterminsm says that some causes have more than one possible outcome.

2. Secondly, how can one cause bring about two different effects? (A concrete example of this happening might help me get my mental arms around it.) Does this not violate the traditional sense of cause-and-effect? Perhaps in answering this you will be addressing my first point.

it's not that it brings about both effects. both effects are possible. it violates a simplistic view of cause and effect that doesn't consider that indeterminism can also suggest that all events are caused without contradiction.

consider this. we have two effects, JIm eating vanilla ice cream and Jim eating chocolate. He loves both and when he goes to the ice cream store, some times he gets chocolate and sometimes he gets vanilla. So the cause is Jim, his hunger, his prefference for chocolate and vanilla and the accessibility of the both flavors. before jim decides, both are possible (but not necessarily equally probable). So lets say jim chooses chocolate. Now, lets say we have a time reversal machine. it's not a time machine because we aren't "traveling" to the past, because we are dealing with an A theory of time where there is no past nor future. no, this machine can only "rewind the clock" and set up events exactly as they were before. So we wire it to rewind time so jim has his choice again, and he chooses chocolate again (because it's still possible). but if we did this 2 or three more times, jim turns out choosing vanilla instead. Of course we need everthing exactly as it is for both effects. we need a cause, but the cause can lead to both effects.

[Sheepdog]

You're assuming that the differece is a quality/characteristic/attribute, when, in fact, it is not. You're importing your own theology into someone else's system, which is invalid.

exactly. no answer to the question should be expected, because it presumes to be true an assertion that Arminians hold as false: that traits or circumstances predetermine the choices of people. a choice may not be influenced, but if it is indubitably free, then it cannot be predetermined.

[Colossians]

Xyboom,
Congrats. You've just graduated from moron to blithering idiot.
(An ambassador for the Arminian cause.)



Micah4,
A causal agent having a reason for initiating some action is not the same as the reason causing the action.
A causal agent cannot cause without a reason, so your dichotomy is false.
Whether the reasons are known to each of the two persons or not is irrelevant. The fact is, there is a reason for two infintely disparate-result decisions were made, and you have to tell us what it is.

What you are doing is trying to divorce the scenario from the notion of benefit as regards eternal destiny and God’s intent in the first place.
Given that God made man, supposedly to obtain eternal life, you have to tell us why one man he made made the right choice in God’s eyes, and the other not. What is the difference due to? Either it was random, or it was the result of something.



John-Philip,
Arminians believe it is entirely logically possible for anyone to choose otherwise with regards to salvation,
This is, as I have said, logically silly.
You cannot choose twice. The notion of what is possible is from the perspective of a third party only, when such third party is considering contingency. What was actually only possible was what in fact did occur.
The fact is, the choice that is made is the choice that is made for eternity. All you are doing is etherealising, and divorcing your scenarios from empirical evidence and the constraints of time. Essentially you are proposing the possibility of round squares.

Like Micah4, you also divorce the issue from the concept of benefit and God’s intent, as though it is merely like going to the cinema vs going to the drive-in. Your answer is not couched in terms of the scheme of God and His intent, and is therefore invalid.
When the gospel is preached, a benefit is offered for a reason: it is the input to choice. You cannot divorce choice from reason for choice. Your dichotomy is invalid.




The muzicman,
The difference, in the end, is free will.
There is no difference in the free will of one person and another. Each is equally free. So your terminology is wrong.
You mean to say that the difference is the will of each man, which is like saying the difference is the intent of each man, which is to say the difference is the difference.
Therefore you have simply begged the question.

Certainly the personality and life expereince and present circumstances and the nature of the presentation of the gospel to that person all have impact
Again you beg the question. “Why is it one person’s experiences impact upon Him to salvation, and another’s upon Him unto damnation?” What is the esential difference in the two individuals that results in their different decisions?




XMANS MOMMY (here in uppercase-bold because at least he is honest in admitting there must be a qualitative difference in the two individuals).
If I had to give a specific answer as to why some choose for and some against I would suggest humility and pride. And what makes a person humble or prideful? How they respond to the different life experiences already listed.
But unfortunately he has begged the question also. “What was the quality present that enabled the one to be humble, but the other not humble?”


KEVIN WAYNE here in uppercase-bold because at least he is honest in admitting there must be a qualitative difference in the two individuals, in that he supports XMANSMOMMY by quoting him and then by posting the below
Romans 1 supports this. .
Unfortunately, he has also begged the question along with XMANZMOMMY



FUROR (another one who is honest),
In answer to the question posed by the OP, I would say that the variable is "environment."
Unfortunately this begs the question. “Why is one effected by his environment positively, and another negatively?”


Infide,
If God gives the light of illumination through Christ in the Church to every man, and every man has the opportunity to believe while they have that light
You are mixing domains. Those in the church are there because they believe, so they don’t have to come to believe.


Geebob,
there is nothing about the sinner nor the repentent that distinguishes one from the other. They both have the quality of being able to refuse God's grace and they both have the ability enabled by God to accept his grace. The difference doesn't come till after the decision.
Begging the question. Why is it one makes the positive decision and one the wrong decision? Was he better? Smarter? In receipt of more information? What was it?


The Analogman
One resisted the Holy Spirit, another didn't.
We already know this. Why was it the case?


Spiderman and Co,
Could you expand on this thought. Perhaps a scenario in which a causal agent had a reason for doing something, but the reason was not the cause?
I agree that there is no universal reason common to all agents - choice is very complex. However, your statement about reasons not being "causal" certainly caught my attention, b/c this has been my primary philosophical objection to indeterminism (i.e. choice seems to reduce to a causeless "free will" which is not determined by anything, ala reasonless, random, and abstract.)
Well addressed Spiderman. Hats off to you. You have identified the essential logical error in John Philip’s idea. (This error is of course distinct from his error of divorcing his scenarios from God’s schema of benefit vs disbenefit for created beings.)


Geebob,
causal indeterminsm says that some causes have more than one possible outcome……it's not that it brings about both effects. both effects are possible.
Two effects are only possible from the perspective of a third party.
What is possible is redundant after what has occurred: what was actually possible is only revealed after the event: it is what actually occurred. There was in actuality only one possible outcome.
Your idea is simply a sophisticated way of desribing randomness, and this divorces choice from the reasons for choice. A round square. No square can be round once it exists.
Coupled with this error is your implicit divorcing of the question from the scheme of God (wilfull creation of man for intended benefit), and that the gospel is preached upon the platform of benefit-offered.




Sheepdog,
a choice may not be influenced, but if it is indubitably free, then it cannot be predetermined.
A-priori reasoning: “choices are not predermined, therefore they are not predetermined”.
You have, like others, divorced the scenario from the notion of eternal benefit as per God’s scheme of things, for beings he has created to receive such benefit.
Ultimately, you like John Philip here, are telling us that the notion of benefit does not factor in a man’s choices. This is ridiculous. When the gospel is preached, a benefit is offered for a reason: it is the input to choice.

[geebob]

Begging the question. Why is it one makes the positive decision and one the wrong decision? Was he better? Smarter? In receipt of more information? What was it?

you're still begging the question by asking a question that assumes the falsity of indeterminism. If there is a reason why one choose one way prior to making that choice that gaurantees the choice, then we don't have indeterminism and hence we don't have free will to begin with. hence, your question cannot be asked within the framework of free will theism. it's like me asking a calvinist why God allows events to happen against his soverign will. The question simply fails to work within the system it is questioning and presumes it's falsity.

Two effects are only possible from the perspective of a third party.

I don't know what you are talking about. There are two possible effects and after one is choosen, the other effect is now something that was possible.

and it is from our perspective that both effects are possible. every human frequently goes through situations where he has a choice and he really thinks he might choose one way and he really thinks he might choose another way. That is our perspective and to believe this perspecitve fully reflects reality as opposed to an illusion is to believe in libertarian free will.

what was actually possible is only revealed after the event: it is what actually occurred.

not if our beliefs that we really might choose one way in a situation and we really might choose another way is true.

And as Christians, we are commited to believing that such is the case if Christians sin. 1st Corinthians 10:13 says that God is faithful to make a way out of sin. So if we Christians sin, then if what you are saying is true, God did not make a possible way out.

Your idea is simply a sophisticated way of desribing randomness

randomness is a poor term as it implies thoughtless, purposeless outcomes. When we make free choices, we are often doing them thoughtfully and purposefully even if we truely could have choosen otherwise for other thoughtful reasons.

my description actually didn't distinguish between randomness and libertarian free will and could apply to both which of course does not mean they are identical but only that they have some things in common.

Coupled with this error is your implicit divorcing of the question from the scheme of God (wilfull creation of man for intended benefit), and that the gospel is preached upon the platform of benefit-offered.

this is a red herring. I intend to answer your question in the topic, not discuss how libertarian free will fits with God's soverignty in free will theism. It's a worthy topic, but topics that lack focus can go nowhere quickly, so I have no interest in dealing with all issues related to free will vs. determinism question. I also don't intend to spend a lot of time here and a lack of focus leads to long cumbersome posts.

[yxboom]

Xyboom,
Congrats. You've just graduated from moron to blithering idiot.
(An ambassador for the Arminian cause.)

and this from the one who is ambassador to all trolls everywhere. if you can't spell my handle correctly do not spell it at all.

[A-Man]

Hey Boom, just be glad you're not a "flamming moron" like me.

[Colossians]

Geebob,

you're still begging the question by asking a question that assumes the falsity of indeterminism. If there is a reason why one choose one way prior to making that choice that gaurantees the choice, then we don't have indeterminism and hence we don't have free will to begin with..
Redundant/a-priori reasoning.
You are like the evolutionist who says “we must have evolved.... we’re here!”.
Indeterminism is counter-intutive, and not empirically supported.It is therefore for you to prove it in the first place, not for me to refute it.
Nice try at turning the tables though.


Two effects are only possible from the perspective of a third party.
I don't know what you are talking about. There are two possible effects and after one is choosen, the other effect is now something that was possible.
You over-extend the utility in the notion of what is possible. There is no such thing as what was possible after an event has occurred. If a particular event has not occurred, ‘possible’ is redundant.


what was actually possible is only revealed after the event: it is what actually occurred.
not if our beliefs that we really might choose one way in a situation and we really might choose another way is true.
You can’t pit beliefs against reality. Reality invalidates your belief here.
There is no event except that which occurred. You are talking in an unreal world of dualism, thus making your position invalidly unfalisifiable.


Your idea is simply a sophisticated way of desribing randomness
randomness is a poor term as it implies thoughtless, purposeless outcomes.
If there is no cause for the thoughfulness, then it is random. You are simply covering up here.


When we make free choices, we are often doing them thoughtfully and purposefully even if we truely could have choosen otherwise for other thoughtful reasons.
Why is it one’s thoughtfulness leads to an infinitely superior result than another’s? Was the input to his thoughts superior, or was his thinking itself superior, or was it both, or was it something else?


Coupled with this error is your implicit divorcing of the question from the scheme of God (wilfull creation of man for intended benefit), and that the gospel is preached upon the platform of benefit-offered.
this is a red herring. I intend to answer your question in the topic, not discuss how libertarian free will fits with God's soverignty in free will theism.
You argue in a vaccum of overall purpose and expect to defend your ideas on free-will for salvation?
You haven’t lost the plot: it appears you never had one.

[themuzicman]

The muzicman,
The difference, in the end, is free will.
There is no difference in the free will of one person and another. Each is equally free. So your terminology is wrong.
You mean to say that the difference is the will of each man, which is like saying the difference is the intent of each man, which is to say the difference is the difference.
Therefore you have simply begged the question.



way to ignore the rest of my post. The difference isn't the presence of free will, but the fact that free will allows for one person to choose one way and another to choose another without outside causation.

Michael

[Sheepdog]

Sheepdog:
a choice may not be influenced, but if it is indubitably free, then it cannot be predetermined.

for the record, i meant to say "a choice may be influenced," not "a choice may not be influenced."

[qutoe]A-priori reasoning: “choices are not predermined, therefore they are not predetermined”.[/quote]

no, just a simple statement of fact that i reject your assumption. therefore, no response to your question is needed.

You have, like others, divorced the scenario from the notion of eternal benefit as per God’s scheme of things, for beings he has created to receive such benefit.

no. i fail to see what relevance "eternal benefit" has here. i would say it is a factor, but not a determinative one.

Ultimately, you like John Philip here, are telling us that the notion of benefit does not factor in a man’s choices. This is ridiculous. When the gospel is preached, a benefit is offered for a reason: it is the input to choice.

it is an input to choice. the problem is, I don't believe that the person is reducible to a simple automaton. hence i reject compatibilism.

by the way, are you suggesting that Christianity is fundamentally selfist?

[Colossians]

Sheepdog,

Your reply is simply assertion which incubates itself against the process of logical deduction.
Therefore your modus operandi is moot: your willingness to prove your position is revealed to have been ostensible only.

All you have said in effect is "it can't be that, because it is this".

[Xmansmommy]

XMANS MOMMY (here in uppercase-bold because at least he is honest in admitting there must be a qualitative difference in the two individuals).
If I had to give a specific answer as to why some choose for and some against I would suggest humility and pride. And what makes a person humble or prideful? How they respond to the different life experiences already listed.
But unfortunately he has begged the question also. “What was the quality present that enabled the one to be humble, but the other not humble?”

There are a myriad of influencing factors in the decision making process. I would say it is a culmination of many factors. God's drawing, environment, geography, message delivery, prior choices, life circumstances, peer pressure, considering the consequences.....the list can go on and on.

I'd like to ask a personal question Colossians if I might. What circumstances lead you to believe? Please don't respond without giving careful thought and consideration to what influences and circumstances brought you to the knowledge that you needed Christ. Perhaps when you examine your own conversion and that of other Christians you know, you''l find the answers you are seeking from each of us. All people that come to Christ had choices to make and if you're honest you'll admit that your past choices as well as many other things influenced your decision to choose Christ.

btw, XM's "Mommy" means I'm a she. :wink:

[yxboom]

Hey Boom, just be glad you're not a "flamming moron" like me.
:haha:

[Xavier]

Sheepdog,

Your reply is simply assertion which incubates itself against the process of logical deduction.
Therefore your modus operandi is moot: your willingness to prove your position is revealed to have been ostensible only.

All you have said in effect is "it can't be that, because it is this".

So using a whole lot of big words to hide the fact that you can't interact with other people's points actually works?!?!?!?

Oh, wait...

[yxboom]

So using a whole lot of big words to hide the fact that you can't interact with other people's points actually works?!?!?!?

Oh, wait...
he simply asserts that his use of big words incubates itself as success to reason in logical deduction. his modus operandi is moot for his pretention to portray himself as knowledgeable is ostensible. when we pontificate with judicial bias we observe he is nothing more than a troll with pointy ears.

[Sheepdog]

Sheepdog,

Your reply is simply assertion which incubates itself against the process of logical deduction.

unless you have actually made an effort at logical deduction, that is itself a simple assertion.

Therefore your modus operandi is moot: your willingness to prove your position is revealed to have been ostensible only.

what need is there to prove my position? your question rests on a questionable assumption. I see no need to accept the assumption, therefore i see no need to answer your question.

don't think you can play logic with me. you won't win.

All you have said in effect is "it can't be that, because it is this".

and all you have said in effect is, "it can't be this, because it is that." please, you are acting like you've said something meriting a full rebuttal.

[Sheepdog]

he simply asserts that his use of big words incubates itself as success to reason in logical deduction. his modus operandi is moot for his pretention to portray himself as knowledgeable is ostensible. when we pontificate with judicial bias we observe he is nothing more than a troll with pointy ears.

you, sir, are a brilliant logician

[Kevin Wayne]

KEVIN WAYNE here in uppercase-bold because at least he is honest in admitting there must be a qualitative difference in the two individuals, in that he supports XMANSMOMMY by quoting him and then by posting the below
Romans 1 supports this. .
Unfortunately, he has also begged the question along with XMANZMOMMY



Nice try, dude. But your original question was:



What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who uses his free will to choose for God, but absent in the one who uses his free will to choose against God?



...and I STILL maintain there is none.

[Colossians]

A SUMMARY OF THE THREAD THUS FAR


So far we've seen the Arminians try to smoke-screen their dilemma by labelling the question in the OP a "straw man".

Their 'reasoning' is a-priori:"there can't be any characteristics which differentiate between the one who made the right decision and the one who made the wrong decision, because if we say there are, we are boxed in to admitting that the ultimate cause is God who made them!"
Such is reminiscent of the logical ‘prowess’ of the evolutionist: “We must have evolved: we’re here!”

So what do the Arminians do? They come up with a hollow man called "agent causation" (a philosophy of the world and not the church, designed to rid the people of the world of the notion of a controlling God), and tell us that there is no characteristic which differentiates between the shmuck who chose hell for eternity, and the other guy who got to go to heaven. “Their decisions could have just as likely been reversed”, they tell us. “Essentially they just made a choice for the heck of it!”

Thus they are in a world of delusion where the will of man is independent of the fabric of the man in whom it resides, sort of a floating will with no vessel (a personified will). And being not subject to the parameters of the vessel it resides in, such a will is completely autonomous in itself, and therefore random: it's decisions are not based upon anything at all, and could just as well be opposite to what they are.

The Arminian has simply provided a hollow man as ostensible answer: a personified will (a conceptual creation of a new entity that is a ‘will-person’, a will which is itself a person), a will necessarily divorced of the personal fabric of the actual person in which it resides. And they have provided along with such new conceptual entity its necessary corollaric dynamic: a will which decides upon issues without ultimate cause.
In line with such, they tell us that any option actually taken up by such will-person, was somehow no more likely than the other options which were declined. Somehow they reason that the actual taking up of a particular option, is no proof that such was more likely! Bizarre!


The Arminian is therefore simply deceiving himself with the slick substanceless sophistry of the philosophers of the world who sit around and contemplate their navel in lieu of an honest day’s work, in particular a world where everything exists in parallel, and where no God is therefore required.
Of course, with any high-falutin idea, a high-falutin label goes along with it: they call this piece of junk “indeterminism”. Sounds sophisticated doesn’t it! The sort of thing a professor of navel-contemplation can hang his PhD on.
Needless to say, His counter-intuitive position has no empirical evidence; nor is it supported by scripture, for we are told: "In Him we live and move and have our being”.


Thus the Arminian, as a result of his insatiable urge to preserve his autonomy before God (his continuation of the lie Satan told Eve in the garden), has adopted an esoteric position which is unfalsifiable simply by virtue of its domain’s being incubated from reality.
For even God's decisions are inextricably linked to the fabric of his Person: His decisions are caused.


All this goes to show us is the extent of creativity the old man will go to to deny the sovereignty of God: that ultimately you cannot argue the old man on to the cross: he will never consent to go.
And thus we see the Arminians ironically doing what they would never choose to do willingly: proving the Calvinist position (that God has to put us on the cross without our co-operation) to be true.



I will shortly begin a thread where I will answer quite simply (without the ethereal smoke and mirrors typical of these wanna-be-a-philosopher Arminians) the question the Arminian can't answer.

[Xavier]

Well... Colossians is literally so lost in his own "fluff" that he can't see the light of day or in this case some a priori reasoning...

Their 'reasoning' is a-priori:"there can't be any characteristics which differentiate between the one who made the right decision and the one who made the wrong decision, because if we say there are, we are boxed in to admitting that the ultimate cause is God who made them!"
Such is reminiscent of the logical ‘prowess’ of the evolutionist: “We must have evolved: we’re here!”

God made us with autonomous wills. I realize that this is a hard concept for your mind to grasp.

So what do the Arminians do? They come up with a hollow man called "agent causation" (a philosophy of the world and not the church, designed to rid the people of the world of the notion of a controlling God)

Which you dismiss a priori in order to hold up your hard determinism even though reality and the Biblical texts speak against you...

Your own words condemn you. The only sophistry here is of your ability to engage or even recognize other's points. But you go ahead and start yet another thread... I'm sure you'll sit there and ignore everyone all over again.

[john-philip]

John-Philip,
Arminians believe it is entirely logically possible for anyone to choose otherwise with regards to salvation,
This is, as I have said, logically silly. You cannot choose twice. The notion of what is possible is from the perspective of a third party only, when such third party is considering contingency. What was actually only possible was what in fact did occur.

Well, at least you seem to have conceded that the original question is loaded since Arminians do not accept the premise you have within it, and if they did, they wouldn't be Arminians, but Calvinists. Either way, the question isn't applicable.

Anyway, I did not say people choose twice - I didn't say that both choices are actual. I said they are possible. Colossians, can you explain to me what logical contingency is?

[Colossians]

Your thinking that my contention in post 130 was that the will was not autonomous (though I might happen think this), instead of what my contention actually was (the will is not divorced from the fabric of the person in whom it resides, it does not constitute a person of itself) shows me you you do not possess the analytic skills in reading and comprehesion to make it worth my while to debate you.

[Xavier]

Your thinking that my contention was that the will was not autonomous (though I might happen think this), instead of what my contention actually was (the will is not divorced from the fabric of the person in whom it resides, it does not constitute a person of itself) shows me you you do not possess the analytic skills in reading and comprehesion to make it worth my while to debate you.

:lmbo:

[john-philip]

Your thinking that my contention in post 130 was that the will was not autonomous (though I might happen think this), instead of what my contention actually was (the will is not divorced from the fabric of the person in whom it resides, it does not constitute a person of itself) shows me you you do not possess the analytic skills in reading and comprehesion to make it worth my while to debate you.


That's funny from someone who just reverted to ad hominem and arguing by assertion, which is logically fallacious. :smile:

BTW, your post was 129, Xavier's was 130.

[Colossians]

Attested to yet further by the young-in-the-mind attititude that prevails in the post preceding this.

It's good that you're having fun though. But I'm a bit more serious about things. If I met you in person, I would be able to spar with you and shoot your ideas down on the spot, but writing being the cumbersome medium it is, I simply couldn't be bothered except to detail quite clearly your errors by way of my summary post 129. Which, as I have pointed out, you did not understand anyway. Which is of course because you don't want to.

So I guess the thing to say to you is continue to have fun, and hang on rigidly to what they taught you in College or Uni.

[Sheepdog]

hey logician, care to go back and reply directly to my post?

A SUMMARY OF THE THREAD THUS FAR

So far we've seen the Arminians try to smoke-screen their dilemma by labelling the question in the OP a "straw man".

are you refering to the false dilemma?

Their 'reasoning' is a-priori:"there can't be any characteristics which differentiate between the one who made the right decision and the one who made the wrong decision, because if we say there are, we are boxed in to admitting that the ultimate cause is God who made them!"

not quite. the rejection of some intrinsic trait that determines how one responds is itself part of Arminian theology. you can't separate the two and still have classic Arminianism.

again, we permit for influences, in terms of desires, circumstances, nature, nurture, etc. We simply reject that influences are determinative.

Such is reminiscent of the logical ‘prowess’ of the evolutionist: “We must have evolved: we’re here!”

:ahem: reminds me of a certain someone here who supposes that since compatibilism is true, Arminians must account for the trait that leads one to salvation but not another.

So what do the Arminians do? They come up with a hollow man called "agent causation" (a philosophy of the world and not the church, designed to rid the people of the world of the notion of a controlling God),...

i.e., "i can't come up with a satisfactory response, so i play the assertion spook game."

determinism originated from pagan Greek philosophy, by the way. ...not that i'd commit the genetic fallacy like you did, of course.

... and tell us that there is no characteristic which differentiates between the shmuck who chose hell for eternity, and the other guy who got to go to heaven. “Their decisions could have just as likely been reversed”, they tell us.

sure, why not?

“Essentially they just made a choice for the heck of it!”

not quite. no adherent of libertine freedom that i'm aware believes we don't make intentful choices. we just believe that intentfulness is more then simple input/output.

Thus they are in a world of delusion where the will of man is independent of the fabric of the man in whom it resides, sort of a floating will with no vessel (a personified will). And being not subject to the parameters of the vessel it resides in, such a will is completely autonomous in itself, and therefore random: it's decisions are not based upon anything at all, and could just as well be opposite to what they are.

you know nothing about libertine freedom. no adherent separates the will from the person, nor do we believe choice is "random."

[blah blah blah]

spare the confused rhetoric. when you have something substantial to say, let us know.

Needless to say, His counter-intuitive position...

it's counterintuitive to suppose that man is more than a sum of neurons?

... has no empirical evidence;...

there is no empirical evidence of God either. :whistle:

...nor is it supported by scripture, for we are told: "In Him we live and move and have our being”.

are you saying that God thinks for us? :hrm:

[blah blah blah]
For even God's decisions are inextricably linked to the fabric of his Person: His decisions are caused.

are you saying that God's choices are determined by something external and prior to Him?

... or are you saying God's choices are self determined. because that is consistent to libertine freedom.

All this goes to show us is the extent of creativity the old man will go to to deny the sovereignty of God: ...

which we don't. if a sovereign God wishes to grant a degree of freedom to His creatures, is that not a sovereign decision?

that ultimately you cannot argue the old man on to the cross: he will never consent to go.

apart from God's grace: don't forget that. otherwise even God couldn't save anyone.

And thus we see the Arminians ironically doing what they would never choose to do willingly: proving the Calvinist position (that God has to put us on the cross without our co-operation) to be true.

are you saying that God saves people against their will? because that is antithetical to Calvinism, from what i hear.

I will shortly begin a thread where I will answer quite simply (without the ethereal smoke and mirrors typical of these wanna-be-a-philosopher Arminians) the question the Arminian can't answer.

by appealing to the ethereal smoke and mirrors of "Compatibilism"? :ahem:

[john-philip]

Attested to yet further by the young-in-the-mind attititude that prevails in the post preceding this.

It's good that you're having fun though. But I'm a bit more serious about things. If I met you in person, I would be able to spar with you and shoot your ideas down on the spot, but writing being the cumbersome medium it is, I simply couldn't be bothered except to detail quite clearly your errors by way of my summary post 129. Which, as I have pointed out, you did not understand anyway. Which is of course because you don't want to.

So I guess the thing to say to you is continue to have fun, and hang on rigidly to what they taught you in College or Uni.

Colossians, I'm not really sure who you were addressing in this post, but note, you didn't respond to mine, AFAICT.

[Xmansmommy]

You know, several times on this board and once in this thread I have directly asked Calvinists to share their own personal conversion stories so that we might see the influenicng factors that played a role in their choice to place faith in Christ. Not once has a Calvinist responded. I'm honestly wondering if it's because when they examine their lives they know that they made choices for various reasons. Just like the unregenerate does. Quite telling I say. :yes:

[Spiderman&Co.]

Spiderman and Co,
Could you expand on this thought. Perhaps a scenario in which a causal agent had a reason for doing something, but the reason was not the cause?
I agree that there is no universal reason common to all agents - choice is very complex. However, your statement about reasons not being "causal" certainly caught my attention, b/c this has been my primary philosophical objection to indeterminism (i.e. choice seems to reduce to a causeless "free will" which is not determined by anything, ala reasonless, random, and abstract.)
Well addressed Spiderman. Hats off to you. You have identified the essential logical error in John Philip’s idea. (This error is of course distinct from his error of divorcing his scenarios from God’s schema of benefit vs disbenefit for created beings.)


I appreciate the encouragement, but I was addressing Micah4 and not John Philip. I actually agree with John Philip (and Micah4) that your Opening Post was a loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" variety.

Although my inclinations are as a determinist both Biblically and philosophically, I cannot join you in denying that man is both a causal and responsible agent. The inspired authors of Scripture never hesitate to ascribe causation to human beings while at the same time developing an undeniable deterministic motif. One example of this is the Exodus account of Pharoah: "God hardened Pharoah's heart...Pharoah hardened his own heart." So, who did the hardening? I think the Biblical answer is, "Yes!" There is a contentment with philosophical tensions that we Modernists find quite odd.

[Nang]

You know, several times on this board and once in this thread I have directly asked Calvinists to share their own personal conversion stories so that we might see the influenicng factors that played a role in their choice to place faith in Christ. Not once has a Calvinist responded. I'm honestly wondering if it's because when they examine their lives they know that they made choices for various reasons. Just like the unregenerate does. Quite telling I say. :yes:

I never made a choice to place my faith in Jesus Christ. I had no faith in me by which I could choose to believe or not. I simply did not believe in God at all until:

The Holy Spirit of Christ convicted me of the righteousness of God along with a simultaneous awareness of my sin. This occurred apart from any human agency, and by a private reading of the Holy Scriptures.

It is the Word of God that has the power to save; through the revelation of the Christ found therein. His Holy Spirit works regeneration through various means of bringing the Gospel ("the call" of God that "draws" men to Christ), which includes God's grant of repentance and the gift of faith to believe.

Therefore, my testimony is this:

"I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes . . ." Romans 1:16

"The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God." I Cor. 1:18

"Now (I) have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that (I) might know the things that have been freely given to (me) from God." I Cor. 2:11

Nang

[Xmansmommy]

I never made a choice to place my faith in Jesus Christ. I had no faith in me by which I could choose to believe or not. I simply did not believe in God at all until:

The Holy Spirit of Christ convicted me of the righteousness of God along with a simultaneous awareness of my sin. This occurred apart from any human agency, and by a private reading of the Holy Scriptures.

That's all fine and good but that reads like a doctrine rather than what I am seeking to discuss. I'd like to know exactly how you came to know the righteousness of God along with the awareness of your sin. Surely you didn't just wake up one day and it was there. Obviously you have lived your life for however many years before you came to faith. You then, like now, made choices each and every day. All throughout your day. Some of them had good consequences, some bad. My point being there were always choices to make even before you had faith. I'd like to know how those choices affected you coming to faith.

It is the Word of God that has the power to save; through the revelation of the Christ found therein. His Holy Spirit works regeneration through various means of bringing the Gospel ("the call" of God that "draws" men to Christ), which includes God's grant of repentance and the gift of faith to believe.

And this is exactly what I'd like to delve into further. How does the word of God save? How does God draw men to Christ?

Therefore, my testimony is this:

"I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes . . ." Romans 1:16

"The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God." I Cor. 1:18

"Now (I) have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that (I) might know the things that have been freely given to (me) from God." I Cor. 2:11

Nang

Nang, I honestly mean no disrespect...and I know you want to stay as biblical as you can in your answer but for all intents and purposes sometimes we are so dogmatic in our responses that they lose all meaning. Your response has lost all meaning to me (perhaps it's just me, I dunno) because you really didn't say how these things happened. You might appeal to mystery, but I'm suggesting that you can look back over the course of your life and see the choices, events, circumstances etc, that lead you in the direction that eventually brought you to the place that you knew you needed God. Whether you believe it was God's doing or not, at least let's address how God works those things out. What means did He use to get your attention?

[infide]

Infide,
If God gives the light of illumination through Christ in the Church to every man, and every man has the opportunity to believe while they have that light
You are mixing domains. Those in the church are there because they believe, so they don’t have to come to believe.

Werent you complaining about someone "not possessing reading comprehension skills", or something like that?

I was saying that the light of Christ is in the Church and from there given to every man, though admittedly, this is a bit of an overstatement as it likely also goes to every man through the created order and conscience as well. This is the obvious meaning, if you consider what you thought i was saying is very odd, of my statement.

The Arminian is therefore simply deceiving himself with the slick substanceless sophistry of the philosophers of the world who sit around and contemplate their navel in lieu of an honest day’s work, in particular a world where everything exists in parallel, and where no God is therefore required.
Of course, with any high-falutin idea, a high-falutin label goes along with it: they call this piece of junk “indeterminism”. Sounds sophisticated doesn’t it!

Your arrogance and naivete are almost laughable, as if the Lord did not give humanity reason, which you cast aside as an exercise in laziness! Your own Calvinistic system would not exist if it were not for philosophers and theologians who sought escape from "an honest day's work"(!?), which is beginning to REEK of anti-intellectualism. Which is ironic BEYOND belief, considering the same charge was made TOWARDS Calvinism by some roman catholic theologians in the 17th century.

The truth is that indeterminism is not some piece of junk sophistry, but is the mere negation of your "high-minded arrogance" which is called determinism. Sounds sophisticated, doesnt it?

If your view cannot be negated, then one wonders what this debate is even about, and how we arrived here at argument as if there was a system and its negation.

Needless to say, His counter-intuitive position has no empirical evidence; nor is it supported by scripture, for we are told: "In Him we live and move and have our being”.

Which is a passage in Scripture that I have used many times, as an indeterminist. you must have missed the fact that this text says NOTHING about the liberty or lack thereof of the will. The indeterminist is not committed to saying that their will or being can function without God. They just believe that God does not force the will to choose something rather than another.

Further, that there is no empirical evidence for free will, is either outrightly false, or even if it is true, somewhat besides the point, since the empiricist epistemology has long been deemed inadaquate (do you even believe in the mind or God?). Not only that, but it is nearly impossible to come even near a Christian ethical system WITHOUT indeterminism, despite the attestations to the contrary by those of your stripe. If men and women are not free to choose their actions, then they cannot be held accountable for the inevitable, and the judgement of Christ becomes a mockery. Since, as you should be aware from a passage you recently quoted, God "made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation" (Acts 17:26, NAS). But if He did determine their times and boundaries of habitation on the determinist system, then so did He choose every one of their actions, including sinful. Thus determinism proves FALSE 1 Cor 10:13 and God's apparent call to act morally. What is your response to this? Can determinism account for morality? I think it cannot, and thus the negation of determinism, indeterminism is shown to be true.

Ill put this in deductive form, for hopes of you actually addressing the issue.

(1) If Christian determinism is true, man must choose some action in particular by God's own decree.
(2) If Christian ethics and the doctrine of Christ's righteous judgement are true, then man ought to choose some action rather than another.
(3) Christian ethics and Christ's righteous judgement are true. (well assume this here, will you be so bold as to deny it?)
(4) If man ought to choose some action rather than another, man can choose some action OR another.
(5) Therefore, man can choose some action or another. (2,3,4, MP)
(6) Therefore, Christian determinism is false. (1,5, MT).

For sake of being concise there may be some implicit premises that should be clear.

peace,
jd

[yxboom]

I never made a choice to place my faith in Jesus Christ. I had no faith in me by which I could choose to believe or not. I simply did not believe in God at all until:

The Holy Spirit of Christ convicted me of the righteousness of God along with a simultaneous awareness of my sin. This occurred apart from any human agency, and by a private reading of the Holy Scriptures.

It is the Word of God that has the power to save; through the revelation of the Christ found therein. His Holy Spirit works regeneration through various means of bringing the Gospel ("the call" of God that "draws" men to Christ), which includes God's grant of repentance and the gift of faith to believe.

Therefore, my testimony is this:

"I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes . . ." Romans 1:16

"The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God." I Cor. 1:18

"Now (I) have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that (I) might know the things that have been freely given to (me) from God." I Cor. 2:11

Nang
maybe its just me but i suspect nang is a James White bot hurling replies that come from the White database of Calvinist flash card responses.

[GoBahnsen]

I never made a choice to place my faith in Jesus Christ. I had no faith in me by which I could choose to believe or not. I simply did not believe in God at all until:

The Holy Spirit of Christ convicted me of the righteousness of God along with a simultaneous awareness of my sin. This occurred apart from any human agency, and by a private reading of the Holy Scriptures.

It is the Word of God that has the power to save; through the revelation of the Christ found therein. His Holy Spirit works regeneration through various means of bringing the Gospel ("the call" of God that "draws" men to Christ), which includes God's grant of repentance and the gift of faith to believe.

Therefore, my testimony is this:

"I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes . . ." Romans 1:16

"The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God." I Cor. 1:18

"Now (I) have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that (I) might know the things that have been freely given to (me) from God." I Cor. 2:11

NangI like this answer.

BTW...hi xman's. When I get some time I'd like to share a tiny bit of my testimony with regard to your question.

[Nang]

That's all fine and good but that reads like a doctrine rather than what I am seeking to discuss. I'd like to know exactly how you came to know the righteousness of God along with the awareness of your sin. Surely you didn't just wake up one day and it was there.

That is exactly what happened.

I came home from work one day an unbeliever, and before midnight I believed. I then spent three days crying and repenting of my sins.



Obviously you have lived your life for however many years before you came to faith. You then, like now, made choices each and every day. All throughout your day. Some of them had good consequences, some bad. My point being there were always choices to make even before you had faith. I'd like to know how those choices affected you coming to faith.

Yes, I willfully chose for years to disbelieve in God. I hated the concept of God. I considered religion to be foolishness. All my choices were made without God in my thinking.



And this is exactly what I'd like to delve into further. How does the word of God save? How does God draw men to Christ?

God draws men to Jesus Christ by the power of His Holy Spirit, who is invisible; working salvation amongst all kinds of men and women.

"Do not marvel at what I said to you, you must be born again. The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:7&8



Nang, I honestly mean no disrespect...and I know you want to stay as biblical as you can in your answer but for all intents and purposes sometimes we are so dogmatic in our responses that they lose all meaning.

I honestly do not know why you asked (demanded) an answer to your question, and then choose to argue.

Yes, I am Scriptural in my responses because I was saved by the Word of God, and I now "live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."


Your response has lost all meaning to me (perhaps it's just me, I dunno) because you really didn't say how these things happened. You might appeal to mystery,

No, I do not appeal to mystery. God changed my mindset. One day I was an unbeliever, the next day I believed. I was given the "mind of Christ," (I Cor. 2:16) by the grace of God.


but I'm suggesting that you can look back over the course of your life and see the choices, events, circumstances etc, that lead you in the direction that eventually brought you to the place that you knew you needed God.

I never felt a need for God. I opposed the notion of the existence of God. But Scripture interrupted my life and brought me knowledge of my sin and the revelation of God's grace. I read and I believed, after a lifetime of resistance.




Whether you believe it was God's doing or not, at least let's address how God works those things out. What means did He use to get your attention?

I am telling you. He caused me to pick up a Bible and read. God saved me through the reading of His Holy Scriptures, which were applied to my mind and heart ("self") by the power of the Holy Spirit.

That is my testimony. Take it or leave it, but it is the truth.

Nang

[Ormly]

No, I do not appeal to mystery. God changed my mindset. One day I was an unbeliever, the next day I believed. I was given the "mind of Christ," (I Cor. 2:16) by the grace of God.


Just like that, eh? Never heard of that given to one who isn't a Christian first. But then maybe your Bible reads different.

[Xmansmommy]

That is exactly what happened.

I came home from work one day an unbeliever, and before midnight I believed. I then spent three days crying and repenting of my sins.

Do you believe this is typical of those that come to Christ or do you believe to some extent your situation is unique?

Yes, I willfully chose for years to disbelieve in God. I hated the concept of God. I considered religion to be foolishness. All my choices were made without God in my thinking.

I can relate.

God draws men to Jesus Christ by the power of His Holy Spirit, who is invisible; working salvation amongst all kinds of men and women.

"Do not marvel at what I said to you, you must be born again. The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:7&8

I'm simply asking how He does this in people's lives.

I honestly do not know why you asked (demanded) an answer to your question, and then choose to argue.

I honestly don't know why you view my questions as arguing. I didn't demand anything Nang. You are free to answer or not. I appreciate the fact that you did. I was simply looking to explore this issue further than simple bible responses. I wanted to and still want to see the actual process by examining the lives of believers. Nothing more, nothing less. You are free to participate or not. :wink:

Yes, I am Scriptural in my responses because I was saved by the Word of God, and I now "live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

So, you sat down one day and read the bible and were convicted in your heart. You were born again that day. Do you think you had a choice as you were reading scripture to believe or not? Would you say that reading and hearing the word of God are two ways God draws people to Himself? Would you say that making the choice to sit down and read the scriptures influenced you toward God?

No, I do not appeal to mystery. God changed my mindset. One day I was an unbeliever, the next day I believed. I was given the "mind of Christ," (I Cor. 2:16) by the grace of God.

Do you have the mind of Christ when you commit sinful acts against a Holy God? Is your mind in tune with Christ 100% of the time?

I never felt a need for God. I opposed the notion of the existence of God.

Until you made the choice to read the scriptures that one day, correct?

But Scripture interrupted my life and brought me knowledge of my sin and the revelation of God's grace. I read and I believed, after a lifetime of resistance.

You read and believed. Was that a choice that you were faced with or not? Could you have chosen not to read that day? Could you have chosen not to believe that day?

I am telling you. He caused me to pick up a Bible and read.

How?

God saved me through the reading of His Holy Scriptures, which were applied to my mind and heart ("self") by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Oh I have no doubt that the HS was convicting you of sin and your need for Christ as you read them.

That is my testimony. Take it or leave it, but it is the truth.

Nang

Nang, perhaps you're used to people who argue over your view. Perhaps that is why I percieve your tone as one who is irritated by my questions. If that's the case, please feel free not to respond to them. I assure you they aren't meant to irritate you but rather to explore the conversion process that all Christians go through. Calvinists included. Forgive me if you have taken my words as an offense.

[Kevin Wayne]

maybe its just me but i suspect nang is a James White bot hurling replies that come from the White database of Calvinist flash card responses.


It doesn't matter. Anyone who thinks a conversion testimony validates or invalidates a particular Theology is talking out his other end anyway.

[Nang]

Forgive me if you have taken my words as an offense.

I am not offended by your desire to hear testimony, but I am offended by your insistence that human choice be inserted as reason for my salvation.

I give all glory to God for saving my soul. He saved me despite me.

Yes, I chose to pick up the Bible and read, but I was reading with a skeptical mind, expecting to find reason to ridicule the material. It was not a decision to seek God; nor was it a search for needed truth or aid. It was for a wicked reason I read the Bible that evening, but God brought good out of my evil motives.

Nang

[yxboom]

It doesn't matter. Anyone who thinks a conversion testimony validates or invalidates a particular Theology is talking out his other end anyway.
explains why nang is so incoherent

[Xmansmommy]

I am not offended by your desire to hear testimony, but I am offended by your insistence that human choice be inserted as reason for my salvation.

Wait a minute Nang. I never said you human choice was the reason for your salvation. I believe a person is saved solely on the blood of Christ so please don't suggest I believe otherwise.

I do believe that prior choices and circumstances as well as God's drawing lead you to a place where you were faced with either believing or not. I am sorry if that offends you but that is my belief and contrary to yours, I am entitled to it. Honestly, if it's something you don't desire to discuss with me, I won't be offended. Like I said, I am seeking to delve deeper into the events that lead up to the Calvinist conversion and seeing whether or not they had anything to do with those specific events.

I give all glory to God for saving my soul. He saved me despite me.

As do Arminians.

Yes, I chose to pick up the Bible and read, but I was reading with a skeptical mind, expecting to find reason to ridicule the material. It was not a decision to seek God; nor was it a search for needed truth or aid. It was for a wicked reason I read the Bible that evening, but God brought good out of my evil motives.

Nang

I have no doubt that He did that. Praise the Lord! When you were reading for wicked and evil purposes and came across scripture that convicted your heart what did you do?

[Nang]

When you were reading for wicked and evil purposes and came across scripture that convicted your heart what did you do?

I believed God existed and that He was giving me grace to repent of my unbelief.

Nang

[Xmansmommy]

I believed God existed and that He was giving me grace to repent of my unbelief.

Nang

Could you have chosen not to as you had in the past? Why did you chose to believe?

[Nang]

Could you have chosen not to as you had in the past?

No. God's grace and saving power are irresistible.



Why did you chose to believe?

I DID NOT choose to believe. My mind was changed from unbelief to belief by the Holy Spirit of God.

I will not converse with you further, for you are intent on forcing your (erroneous) theological presuppositions into my conversion testimony. That greatly offends me.

Nang

[yxboom]

I will not converse with you further, for you are intent on forcing your (erroneous) theological presuppositions into my conversion testimony. That greatly offends me.

Nang
good call. xmm is shifty like that.

[Xmansmommy]

No. God's grace and saving power are irresistible.

I DID NOT choose to believe. My mind was changed from unbelief to belief by the Holy Spirit of God.

I will not converse with you further, for you are intent on forcing your (erroneous) theological presuppositions into my conversion testimony. That greatly offends me.

Nang

Although I disagree that I forced anything by asking simple questions, I will respect your decision. God bless you.

[Xmansmommy]

good call. xmm is shifty like that.

:doh: I believe the point was made. It was an honest attempt to address this issue. However, I'm sorry Nang felt offended. I understand why she was though.

[Kevin Wayne]

good call. xmm is shifty like that.


And yet, they can go around forcing thier presuppositions on us, teling us "you believe you save yourself," etc etc with no conscience about it whatsoever.

[Xmansmommy]

And yet, they can go around forcing thier presuppositions on us, teling us "you believe you save yourself," etc etc with no conscience about it whatsoever.

That, many do Kevin.

[themuzicman]

So, let's evaluate what we have so far:

We have an OP that demans that someone conform to the poster's theology to explain their own.

We have the thread starter moving the goalposts and failing to grasp the basis for the answer to his question.

We have the thread starter engaging in burning strawmen (non-sequitor), ad homenim, and a variety of other logical problems.

Finally, we have a thread starter who somehow thinks he's ahead because he's incapable of grasping the reasoning of his opponents.

Michael

[johnnybanano]

I don't usually post in a thread without reading the whole thread, but I just happened on this one during something else that I'm occupied with. If this point has already been brought up than just disregard my post.



Here's the question:
"What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who uses his free will to choose for God, but absent in the one who uses his free will to choose against God?"


The wording of this question slyly avoids the explication that something causes one to believe and that cause is absent in the one who does not believe.

This reveals an assumption of determinism or at least compatiblism that most Arminians do not agree with.

So again, the question is moot. It starts by assuming something causes one to believe but not the other. Whether you believe this is write or wrong probably determines whether you are a Calvinist or an Arminian so the question is biased.



Daniel

[GoBahnsen]

No. God's grace and saving power are irresistible.





I DID NOT choose to believe. My mind was changed from unbelief to belief by the Holy Spirit of God.

I will not converse with you further, for you are intent on forcing your (erroneous) theological presuppositions into my conversion testimony. That greatly offends me.

NangNot that I'm the expert on anything, but I think you mean to say that your choosing, which of course you did do, was after the fact of God choosing you and working in you...so that you did indeed choose Jesus. It was God's choice that resulted in your salvation, but that choice - He made -resulted in your choice. Yes?

Otherwise we end up with this robot charge leveled at us. As if we are zapped into Christianity with no real choice being made on our part. We do choose, but only because He first chose us and Jesus informed the twelve of that very important fact.

And I agree with you that we will not resist God's choice because that would amount to resisting to breathe when we are spanked into this world. A baby chooses that first breath, but he/she really could not, nor desired to do otherwise. The choice came out of a necessity that was beyond the baby's ability to really argue with the goodness of that choice.

[Nang]

Not that I'm the expert on anything, but I think you mean to say that your choosing, which of course you did do,

I made no decision. My mind and heart was changed and I simply believed.

Why do you join the others to try to make me say otherwise? Where does the word "choose" ever occur in the Bible on the part of the sinner? Every reference to choosing points to God, not man.


It was God's choice that resulted in your salvation, but that choice - He made -resulted in your choice. Yes?

Since my salvation I have volitionally chosen to walk according to the will of God and in His Spirit, if that is what you mean.



Otherwise we end up with this robot charge leveled at us.

Don't be overly afraid of that charge. It is a fallacy and an intimidation only. We are all created in the image of God, which means we are willful creatures, and not robots or mere puppets.



As if we are zapped into Christianity with no real choice being made on our part. We do choose, but only because He first chose us and Jesus informed the twelve of that very important fact.

Jesus said His disciples did not choose Him, but He chose them. Where is any further mention of their then making a choice, other than their willfully following Him?

And I agree with you that we will not resist God's choice because that would amount to resisting to breathe when we are spanked into this world. A baby chooses that first breath, but he/she really could not, nor desired to do otherwise. The choice came out of a necessity that was beyond the baby's ability to really argue with the goodness of that choice.

Infants make no conscious choice to breathe, they just breathe according to God giving them life. So it is when one is born again. Regenerated souls live again according to the resurrection power of the Spirit, just as Lazarus obeyed Jesus and came to life to walk out of his tomb. No mention of choice or decision, but Lazarus simply obeyed and walked away from the rot of death.

Nang

[Arminian]

I have run this thread on a number of sites, and no Arminian has been able to answer it. Perhaps you could be the first! (Be ware though, many many have tried.)


Here's the question:
"What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who uses his free will to choose for God, but absent in the one who uses his free will to choose against God?"

In your attempted answer, try to avoid a question which begs an equivalent question. For example, avoid answers like "one had more faith than the other". (This is simply to beg the question "What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who has more faith and absent in the one who had less faith?)


That's a good question -- one that no one, I suspect, can answer to your satisfaction. I say that because your underlying a assumption is that there is a "cause-and-effect" relationship that could be explained in terms analogous to some materialist construct of one type or another. Since the existence and operations of God can't be explained in materialistic or mechanistic ways, the interaction of God with man can't be, either.

For some reason (no doubt due in part to my advanced age), T. S. Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions comes to mind when this topic comes up. I suspect that Kuhn would describe the Arminian position on this topic as "pre-theoretical," much like the physical world was to Westerners prior to Newtonian physics. Euclidian geometry was used to describe the world, but the use of Euclidian geometry did not lead to the discovery of Newtonian physics; rather, an accumulation of anomalies led to a realization that the questions were being asked in the wrong way, with the wrong underlying constructs. Eventually, quantum mechanics came about with its own explanation of the world at a different level, and its explanations were based on an approach largely incommensurable with the constructs that preceded it, as well.

As such, the Arminian understanding of the situation involves LFW, and is somewhat like the understanding physicists have of a unified theory of physics -- it's pre-theoretical, somewhat tacit, but ultimately ineffable due to the fact that there is as of yet no construct to use as guideline. And like the situation was with the pre-Newtonian world under Euclidian geometry, we can observe the "Calvinst world" and safely conclude that a better explanation is needed, and sort of describe what it might look like (especially, what it wouldn't look like), even without a clear, explicit construct.

Considering that both the Arminians and Calvinists agree that the operation of the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary for faith to come about, the issue is really whether the Holy Spirit works in such a way that is irresistible, or whether the Holy Spirit enables men and women to decide, with varying results. If the latter, we have a situation that is incommensurable with the standard Calvinist explanation, but commensurable with the Arminain explanation, even though a totally satisfying, exhaustive explanation will still evade us.

I would have to say that, for me, one of the best examples of God enabling men to believe with varying results can be found in Matthew 11:

20Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

Jesus' point is that Korazin and Bethsaida are relatively more obdurate than Tyre and Sidon. In fact, Tyre and Sidon would have believed if Christ had done in those cities what he did in the others. The point we need to observe here is that they "would have believed." Of course, it's common sense (given Arminian and Calvinist presuppositions) that the operation of the Holy Spirit is necessary for those in Tyre and Sidon to believe. And given that they "would have believed," we conclude that 1) the only Spirit was affecting them in such a way to enable them to believe, and 2) that the effect of the Holy Spirit was not irresistible.

No doubt this same understanding is behind Peter's appeal to the "men of Israel" (Acts 2:40):

With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation."

A couple of analogies come to mind here, but one of the stranger ones that I've always toyed with is Paul's rebuke of the Corinthians (see 1 Cor. 14) for speaking in tongues without someone to interpret. The Corinthians, enabled by the Holy Spirit, were disturbing what Paul considered the ideal environment for worship by speaking without an interpreter. In fact, the Corinthians were guilty of sin for both that reason and also because they had created divisions within the church by esteeming that gift over all others. Here, again, we see that the operation of the Holy Spirit doesn't necessarily result in a desired outcome. In fact, depending upon how the Spirit's enabling was used, it resulted in sin.

So, in the sense that I've described, I find the Arminian explanation of LFW relatively satisfying (and it pains me to say that, not being an advocate of philosophical Arminianism --or Calvinism, for that matter --, per se). And, for the reasons described above, I also share the frustration that accompanies a pre-theoretical explanation, but without the doubt that it's the best explanation. That's just how the world is: "Hypotheses facta fingnut" (--Aristotle?).

[GoBahnsen]

I made no decision. My mind and heart was changed and I simply believed. Ok, so you chose/decided to believe. Just because the non Calvinist has placed to much import on his own choice in salvation, doesn't mean that the word "choice" must be abandoned by Calvinist/and other Reformed believers.


Why do you join the others to try to make me say otherwise? Where does the word "choose" ever occur in the Bible on the part of the sinner? Joshua put it to Israel. "Choose this day whom you will serve". Nothing wrong with that. It's the way we tick. Joshua didn't have to say within himself "hey...ya know what, the people of God will simply follow Him and the others won't." While that may be true, God appeals to His own to choose what they will.

Every reference to choosing points to God, not man. I think you're over-stating things, but I like what you write most of the time.




Since my salvation I have volitionally chosen to walk according to the will of God and in His Spirit, if that is what you mean.
Good





Don't be overly afraid of that charge. It is a fallacy and an intimidation only. We are all created in the image of God, which means we are willful creatures, and not robots or mere puppets.
I'm not afraid of the charge, but I can understand the reason it get's used against Calvinists. The bottom line is that people want to be IN CONTROL. If God is in control of who gets saved, that freaks humans out.
The Calvinist and a Reformed believer, like myself, have simply come to terms with God being in control and they don't mind.

Then you have the non Reformed say back to us "yeah...you don't mind because God chose you, well what if He didn't...then you might be more upset..." Silly questions like that, which display a sort of spiritual immaturity at best and the real evil of unbelief at worst.





Jesus said His disciples did not choose Him, but He chose them. Where is any further mention of their then making a choice, other than their willfully following Him?
I know, I know, but each was confronted by the Master with the command "follow Me". At that point they "chose" to freely follow Him. He was...irresistable to THEM. They were drawn (helko) by God, compelled by superior power. To choose to not follow Him was not a real option in the final analysis.



Infants make no conscious choice to breathe, they just breathe according to God giving them life. So it is when one is born again. Regenerated souls live again according to the resurrection power of the Spirit, just as Lazarus obeyed Jesus and came to life to walk out of his tomb. No mention of choice or decision, but Lazarus simply obeyed and walked away from the rot of death.

Nang
I agree. I do think that Lazarus is a type of or picture of regeneration. Nevertheless...choose this day whom you will serve and Christians must do that everyday or be found with only demon faith.

[infide]

Colossians,

would you care to respond to the deductive argument presented in post #142, page 9?

peace,
jd

[Nang]

Ok, so you chose/decided to believe.

No, I did not. And I resent this persistence in trying to make it seem like that is my testimony.

My testimony is just the opposite. All I ever chose to do was oppose the notion of the existence of God.

God changed my mind, just as surely as Jesus raised Lazarus from the tomb. One minute Lazarus was dead and rotting away, and the next he was hearing the voice of Jesus calling his name, and walking away from his grave.

Same with me. One minute I was unbelieving and truly dead in my sins, and the next I was comprehending the word of God, believing His existence was surely real and powerful, and knowing to begin my walk away from sin.

My conversion was the choice of God, the power of God, the work of God, to the glory of God.

I had nothing to do with it.

Not any more than Saul had something to do with God knocking him off his horse with a great light on his way to Damascus (not that I desire to compare myself to Saul and Lazarus, but these kinds of conversions do happen).

Others might have different testimonies. I am not insisting on any kind of formula for knowing one has been converted from death to life.

But, please allow me my testimony, and do not revision it to suit your theological views.





Joshua put it to Israel. "Choose this day whom you will serve".

This is one instance (Joshua Chapter 24) when the Israelites at Shechem were commanded to "choose this day whom" they would serve. Often God's commands are instruction as to what men ideally and righteously should do.

And the men of Shechem did as God said, and made their choice to serve God, but if you read further into the Book of Judges (Chapter 9 vss 20-57) you find the very men of Shechem that "chose" to serve the Lord, miserably failed to do so, and ended up cursed by God.

Moral of the story . . .sinners cannot choose to serve God, apart from God first choosing them unto salvation. So the Joshua verses do not set precedent for sinners "accepting" Christ, or "choosing to serve the Lord," in order to find salvation. It is not in any sinner to be able to successfully do so.

None of us are saved except through God's choosing us (election) by His grace and divine power. Only when God does the choosing is our salvation successful and sure.





The bottom line is that people want to be IN CONTROL. If God is in control of who gets saved, that freaks humans out.


This is exactly right, and when a believer gives a testimony declaring they were not in control enough to choose their own salvation, they also freak out!


The Calvinist and a Reformed believer, like myself, have simply come to terms with God being in control and they don't mind.

Don't mind?!!!

I rejoice that God is in control.

I was a terrible failure when I thought I was in control of my fate.

I rest in peace and immense assurance because I know Jesus Christ is in control, not only of my fate, but the rest of my time on this earth.

Nang

[Calvinist4Him]

Ok, so you chose/decided to believe. Just because the non Calvinist has placed to much import on his own choice in salvation, doesn't mean that the word "choice" must be abandoned by Calvinist/and other Reformed believers.

Have you read Dr. Van Til's "Why I Believe in God"? If not, you should (it's quite short). I believe you would enjoy it immensely. Dr. Van Til would say that God is the "all-conditioner" of belief in Him. So although freedom to choose is given, resistance is futile for the elect, for God has opened the spiritual eyes of the elect, those whom He has chosen to regenerate. What choice do the regenerate elect in Christ have but to weep and repent, and say; "You're the Lord, grant me the grace that I might follow you all of my days"? Again, God is the all-conditioner, and conditions the choices the elect make. In this way, monergistic regeneration comes before choice, and actually conditions the choice, in such a way that the elect are irresistably drawn to the Father to the praise of His glory.

[GoBahnsen]

Have you read Dr. Van Til's "Why I Believe in God"? If not, you should (it's quite short). I believe you would enjoy it immensely. Dr. Van Til would say that God is the "all-conditioner" of belief in Him. So although freedom to choose is given, resistance is futile for the elect, for God has opened the spiritual eyes of the elect, those whom He has chosen to regenerate. What choice do the regenerate elect in Christ have but to weep and repent, and say; "You're the Lord, grant me the grace that I might follow you all of my days"? Again, God is the all-conditioner, and conditions the choices the elect make. In this way, monergistic regeneration comes before choice, and actually conditions the choice, in such a way that the elect are irresistably drawn to the Father to the praise of His glory.I'm all fine with that. I guess Nang just has her own testimony and she never chose to follow Jesus. In my own testimony a time came when I chose Christ. And for a long period of years I thought I originated that choice out of my own "freewill". Since then I have come to see that Jesus is the Author and Finisher of my faith.

[GoBahnsen]

No, I did not. And I resent this persistence in trying to make it seem like that is my testimony.

My testimony is just the opposite. All I ever chose to do was oppose the notion of the existence of God.

God changed my mind, just as surely as Jesus raised Lazarus from the tomb. One minute Lazarus was dead and rotting away, and the next he was hearing the voice of Jesus calling his name, and walking away from his grave.

Same with me. One minute I was unbelieving and truly dead in my sins, and the next I was comprehending the word of God, believing His existence was surely real and powerful, and knowing to begin my walk away from sin.

My conversion was the choice of God, the power of God, the work of God, to the glory of God.

I had nothing to do with it.

Not any more than Saul had something to do with God knocking him off his horse with a great light on his way to Damascus (not that I desire to compare myself to Saul and Lazarus, but these kinds of conversions do happen).

Others might have different testimonies. I am not insisting on any kind of formula for knowing one has been converted from death to life.

But, please allow me my testimony, and do not revision it to suit your theological views.







This is one instance (Joshua Chapter 24) when the Israelites at Shechem were commanded to "choose this day whom" they would serve. Often God's commands are instruction as to what men ideally and righteously should do.

And the men of Shechem did as God said, and made their choice to serve God, but if you read further into the Book of Judges (Chapter 9 vss 20-57) you find the very men of Shechem that "chose" to serve the Lord, miserably failed to do so, and ended up cursed by God.

Moral of the story . . .sinners cannot choose to serve God, apart from God first choosing them unto salvation. So the Joshua verses do not set precedent for sinners "accepting" Christ, or "choosing to serve the Lord," in order to find salvation. It is not in any sinner to be able to successfully do so.

None of us are saved except through God's choosing us (election) by His grace and divine power. Only when God does the choosing is our salvation successful and sure.








This is exactly right, and when a believer gives a testimony declaring they were not in control enough to choose their own salvation, they also freak out!




Don't mind?!!!

I rejoice that God is in control.

I was a terrible failure when I thought I was in control of my fate.

I rest in peace and immense assurance because I know Jesus Christ is in control, not only of my fate, but the rest of my time on this earth.

NangYou got me there. "Don't mind" was a poor choice of how to express that truth. You take care, GB

[Nang]

I guess Nang just has her own testimony and she never chose to follow Jesus.

Said like that, I sound pretty bad! :innocent:

There was no choice. I was saved. I followed. I could never have chosen not to believe or not to follow Jesus, for it was God's will that I be created in Christ and saved in Christ, way before I was ever born. I just did not know about my election and justification until God gifted me with faith to believe God's purposes and plan for my life.

I appreciate what you are saying, really . . .there are many things I have chosen to do over the years in my Christian walk that I thought were initiated by me, for they were actions done consciously and willingly, but with hindsight I now admit most of these acts were the result of Christ's Spirit prompting and guiding (usually way ahead of me) in order to accomplish His will and His good.

But this teaching that sinners must "choose" Christ, or "accept" Christ, or respond to an "offer" of salvation places all responsibility for finding salvation upon the creature, rather than the Creator who died on the cross to guarantee the salvation of His Elect.

Nang

[Arminian]

Has anyone considered opening a "Posturing Folder," or is this it?

[Colossians]

Johnnybanano,

So again, the question is moot. It starts by assuming something causes one to believe but not the other. Whether you believe this is write or wrong probably determines whether you are a Calvinist or an Arminian so the question is biased.
The question contains no bias at all in lieu of your explaining how one can make a decision detached from his own perception.
You simply have no framework to offer as an alternative to cause and effect.
It is not sufficient to just say "indeterminism is the answer". Show us how it is. Give us an example of how it works. Show us why it is not random.
Show us why one chooses an infinitely better alternative than another. Tell us why over 90% of people choose the wrong way.

And then when you can't, read my thread which answers the question.

[Ormly]

I'm all fine with that. I guess Nang just has her own testimony and she never chose to follow Jesus. In my own testimony a time came when I chose Christ. And for a long period of years I thought I originated that choice out of my own "freewill". Since then I have come to see that Jesus is the Author and Finisher of my faith.

Different faith and you haven't learned of that faith, as Paul learned, to make such a comment.

[GoBahnsen]

Different faith and you haven't learned of that faith, as Paul learned, to make such a comment.We may have different faiths indeed.

[Ormly]

We may have different faiths indeed.


Indeed we do. Mine is as Paul's, a work in progress, to be sure. . Your's is of yourself. You testify to that as being the case. It's the same as unbelief wrapped up in a different package.

[Swordman53]

I have run this thread on a number of sites, and no Arminian has been able to answer it. Perhaps you could be the first! (Be ware though, many many have tried.)


Here's the question:
"What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who uses his free will to choose for God, but absent in the one who uses his free will to choose against God?"

The answer is very simple - nothing.

Choice is an act of the self, which weighs evidence and acts based on my own self-volition. Therefore, nothing is required to make the choice external to myself if it is "I" who am making it. I am fully capable of making one of many choices in the same situation.

The question then is - what impacts my choices? There are many things that influence, but no single thing except the self is the determining factor of how I will make that choice or what choice I will make. That is why we are moral agents.

What do you think the image of God is if not self-volition? And what is self-volition (moral agency) if not the ego choosing of its own accord?

Any other unanswerable questions?

Swordman53

[Alberta girl]

Submission. To the total degree that one is capable of at the time. To bend the knee. To surrender the pride.

Faith is nothing more than a kernal. It grows and wanes in every life. It is never a constant unchanging quality. Every human being has it to some degree or another, and they choose where they will place it. But I have seen individuals surrender to something they do not yet understand, and are not entirely certain even exists, and yet at that moment their surrender is absolute and they pass from one kingdom to another.

[Colossians]

Alberta,

Faith .....Every human being has it to some degree or another,
Not at all. "All men have not faith" 2 Thes 3:2.
You need to filter out the humanistic message from the sermons you are listening to, and replace it with a lot of bible reading.


and they choose where they will place it/
No again. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. Faith's object is always Christ.
What the Muslims, for example, term "faith", is merely superstition, for they have no evidence of unseen things, being oblivious to the Holy Spirit.



But try to answer the thread question. Given that it is a much better decision to choose for God than against, why is it one makes this better decision, and the other guy doesn't?

[Ormly]

Alberta,

Faith .....Every human being has it to some degree or another,
Not at all. "All men have not faith" 2 Thes 3:2.
You need to filter out the humanistic message from the sermons you are listening to, and replace it with a lot of bible reading.


and they choose where they will place it/
No again. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. Faith's object is always Christ.
What the Muslims, for example, term "faith", is merely superstition, for they have no evidence of unseen things, being oblivious to the Holy Spirit.



But try to answer the thread question. Given that it is a much better decision to choose for God than against, why is it one makes this better decision, and the other guy doesn't?

Stuff it!

[Bill the Cat]

Alberta,

Faith .....Every human being has it to some degree or another,
Not at all. "All men have not faith" 2 Thes 3:2.
You need to filter out the humanistic message from the sermons you are listening to, and replace it with a lot of bible reading.

Doesn't mean they won't develop it later, the way the Apostles did.

Mark 4
39 And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, "Hush, be still." And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm.

40 And He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?"



and they choose where they will place it/
No again. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. Faith's object is always Christ.
What the Muslims, for example, term "faith", is merely superstition, for they have no evidence of unseen things, being oblivious to the Holy Spirit.


Faith's object is not always Christ as Paul warned:
1 Cor 2
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

But try to answer the thread question. Given that it is a much better decision to choose for God than against, why is it one makes this better decision, and the other guy doesn't?

Why is it that you choose to eat hot dogs at the fair and another chooses to eat polish sausage? Choice is the answer. Not the question.

[Colossians]

Alberta,


Faith .....Every human being has it to some degree or another,
Not at all. "All men have not faith" 2 Thes 3:2.
You need to filter out the humanistic message from the sermons you are listening to, and replace it with a lot of bible reading.
Doesn't mean they won't develop it later, the way the Apostles did.
Faith comes from faith, not from non-faith.
The teaching of 2 Thes 3:2 is clear: there a men who will never have faith. You were simply unaware of the verse, and are trying to make it fit your ideas rather than learn from it.





Scripture Verse:
Mark 4
39 And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, "Hush, be still." And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm. 40 And He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?"
You read “do you still have no faith?” as meaning “I really truly thought you’d have faith by now”?






and they choose where they will place it
No again. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. Faith's object is always Christ.
What the Muslims, for example, term "faith", is merely superstition, for they have no evidence of unseen things, being oblivious to the Holy Spirit.
Faith's object is not always Christ as Paul warned:
Scripture Verse:
1 Cor 2
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Paul uses “faith” here (in the wisdom of men) in a notional sense only, for he understood quite plainly that “faith is the evidence of unseen things”. ‘Faith’ in man has no evidence of unseen things.






But try to answer the thread question. Given that it is a much better decision to choose for God than against, why is it one makes this better decision, and the other guy doesn't?
Why is it that you choose to eat hot dogs at the fair and another chooses to eat polish sausage? Choice is the answer. Not the question.
Choice is simply the noun form of the verb “choose”, and therefore you beg the question. All you have said is “because”.
If it were merely a matter of hot dogs and sausages, perhaps I could let you off the hook. But when it is a matter of infinite benefit vs infinite disbenefit for all eternity, then you are obliged to produce a better answer. Especially considering that God made all men, according to you, to receive an infinite benefit.
So was one smarter than the other? One more righteous to being with? Softer hearted? What made the infinite difference? What made someone choose hell for eternity and another heaven? Why the huge difference?

[Bill the Cat]

Please use the quote tags. I can read your posts easier when you use them. Here's how:

text quoted




Faith .....Every human being has it to some degree or another,
Not at all. "All men have not faith" 2 Thes 3:2.
You need to filter out the humanistic message from the sermons you are listening to, and replace it with a lot of bible reading.
Doesn't mean they won't develop it later, the way the Apostles did.
Faith comes from faith, not from non-faith.
The teaching of 2 Thes 3:2 is clear: there a men who will never have faith. You were simply unaware of the verse, and are trying to make it fit your ideas rather than learn from it.

No, you are the one who is incorrect. Those who have no faith may develop faith, because of the very meaning of the word pistis. it is a trust in real events as fact. I was very aware of this verse and that's how I was so able to counter your interpretation of it with another instance of the same phrase. In Mark, we see those with no faith, and we know for a fact that later those with no faith develop faith in Jesus. We do not know who Paul speaks of in 2 Thes and don't know what became of them later. Paul even described himself as wicked, like he describes those in 2 Thes, and yet, he developed faith later.





Scripture Verse:
Mark 4
39 And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, "Hush, be still." And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm. 40 And He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?"
You read “do you still have no faith?” as meaning “I really truly thought you’d have faith by now”?


Yes, they did not have faith in Him. The words are exactly the same. Now, you can dance around this all you want, but the words themselves and the known history of Saul of Tarsus (a wicked enemy of the faith)and the Apostles (Whon Jesus said had no faith) dismiss your claims.



and they choose where they will place it
No again. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. Faith's object is always Christ.
What the Muslims, for example, term "faith", is merely superstition, for they have no evidence of unseen things, being oblivious to the Holy Spirit.
Faith's object is not always Christ as Paul warned:
Scripture Verse:
1 Cor 2
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Paul uses “faith” here (in the wisdom of men) in a notional sense only, for he understood quite plainly that “faith is the evidence of unseen things”. ‘Faith’ in man has no evidence of unseen things.


Paul uses the word pistis, the exact same word as Jesus used in John 3:16 for believe. There is no "notional" sense. it has a specific meaning you refuse to consider. It is placing your trust and allegiance in someone else... Please do some real reading

http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html





But try to answer the thread question. Given that it is a much better decision to choose for God than against, why is it one makes this better decision, and the other guy doesn't?

Ask the Atheists here which is the better decision... You'll get an entirely different answer from your statement here.


Why is it that you choose to eat hot dogs at the fair and another chooses to eat polish sausage? Choice is the answer. Not the question.
Choice is simply the noun form of the verb “choose”, and therefore you beg the question. All you have said is “because”.

You ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer. Once you learn the meaning of pistis how the Ancients understood it, you will have your answer.

If it were merely a matter of hot dogs and sausages, perhaps I could let you off the hook. But when it is a matter of infinite benefit vs infinite disbenefit for all eternity, then you are obliged to produce a better answer. Especially considering that God made all men, according to you, to receive an infinite benefit.

With the ABILITY to receive the benefit provided they exercise trust (pistis) in Jesus. Some simply don't want to.

So was one smarter than the other? One more righteous to being with? Softer hearted? What made the infinite difference? What made someone choose hell for eternity and another heaven? Why the huge difference?
Ask an atheist those questions and they will say you have no evidence at all that there is any infinity. So, let's make this more significant... why did you choose to marry your wife over another woman?

[Colossians]

Bill the cat,


The teaching of 2 Thes 3:2 is clear: there a men who will never have faith. You were simply unaware of the verse, and are trying to make it fit your ideas rather than learn from it.
No, you are the one who is incorrect. Those who have no faith may develop faith
There is no such concept as “developing” faith. There is only the receiving of it. You are making up stories.
Additionally, you are blatantly contravening the intent of 2 Thes 3:2: you basically make it of no account. It is given to tell us that many will never have faith, that many will die without faith.
Thus “when the Son of man comes, will He find faith?”








Mark 4
39 And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, "Hush, be still." And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm. 40 And He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?"
You read “do you still have no faith?” as meaning “I really truly thought you’d have faith by now”?
Yes, they did not have faith in Him. The words are exactly the same. Now, you can dance around this all you want,
Learn to dance with the right partner, and read what I actually wrote.








Faith's object is not always Christ as Paul warned:
Scripture Verse:
1 Cor 2
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Paul uses “faith” here (in the wisdom of men) in a notional sense only, for he understood quite plainly that “faith is the evidence of unseen things”. ‘Faith’ in man has no evidence of unseen things.
Paul uses the word pistis, the exact same word as Jesus used in John 3:16 for believe. There is no "notional" sense. it has a specific meaning you refuse to consider.
Of course he uses the word “pistis”, that is why we translate is as “faith”. The word is irrelevant, it is the context which determines its use. If I say I’ll catch a train, I am not to be taken as using a net or a mouse trap to do so.
Paul is not using it to mean real faith because he defined faith as something other at Heb 11:1.
The use is notional, just as I have said. You don’t have a case. You can’t have faith in man: such is an oxymoron: faith relates to unseen things.








But try to answer the thread question. Given that it is a much better decision to choose for God than against, why is it one makes this better decision, and the other guy doesn't?
Ask the Atheists here which is the better decision... You'll get an entirely different answer from your statement here.
Ask him after her reaches hell and see whether you get the same answer. (Hint: Lazarus and the rich man).







With the ABILITY to receive the benefit provided they exercise trust (pistis) in Jesus. Some simply don't want to.
You have begged the question. Why do some want to, and others not? What makes the difference?

[Alberta girl]

Here's the question:
"What is the fundamental quality/characteristic/attribute which is present in the one who uses his free will to choose for God, but absent in the one who uses his free will to choose against God?"



That was your thread question. My answer was submission. The bending of the knee. The turning from pride.

You can find a scripture that says 'not every man has faith'. I can find a scripture that says "God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith'- Ro 12:3.

Please look at my answer again. Have you ever heard the phrase "Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven"?

[Bill the Cat]

Bill the cat,

Funny how you ignored, deleted, and glossed over every point I made.
and learn how to use the quote tags for heaven's sake!!!

The teaching of 2 Thes 3:2 is clear: there a men who will never have faith. You were simply unaware of the verse, and are trying to make it fit your ideas rather than learn from it.
No, you are the one who is incorrect. Those who have no faith may develop faith
There is no such concept as “developing” faith. There is only the receiving of it. You are making up stories.

Bull. I showed what the word faith meant, and even linked you to an article to find out for yourself. Yet you ignorantly waved your hand and declared victory, like the Black Night in Monty Python's movie. Faith can and does develop, and the evidence soundly defeats you, so please remove your head from the sand and admit that Jesus said the Disciples at that time posessed NO faith, which they eventually did develop.

Additionally, you are blatantly contravening the intent of 2 Thes 3:2: you basically make it of no account. It is given to tell us that many will never have faith, that many will die without faith.

It does not say one solitary word about them dying without faith. It was a simple warning from Paul to watch out for those who do not HAVE faith; the same condition he was in before the road to Damascus. Please don't delete this part in your reply as you have dishonestly done in the last. Explain where Paul says they with no faith will never receive it, and then make it fit with the disciples lack of faith in Mark.

Thus “when the Son of man comes, will He find faith?”

Seriously ripped from its context...:no: You ripped the end of a parable out of its intended meaning. This "lack of faith" was Jesus asking if the elect will bother to call to Him day and night. It refers to the limited faith of those who are saved...


Luk 18:7 now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them?

Luk 18:8 "I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"



Mark 4
39 And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, "Hush, be still." And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm. 40 And He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?"
You read “do you still have no faith?” as meaning “I really truly thought you’d have faith by now”?
Yes, they did not have faith in Him. The words are exactly the same. Now, you can dance around this all you want,
Learn to dance with the right partner, and read what I actually wrote.


That's it... don't bother responding to my points. You read what I wrote because I made the claim that the words were exactly the same apistis and you ignored that completely


Faith's object is not always Christ as Paul warned:
Scripture Verse:
1 Cor 2
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Paul uses “faith” here (in the wisdom of men) in a notional sense only, for he understood quite plainly that “faith is the evidence of unseen things”. ‘Faith’ in man has no evidence of unseen things.
Paul uses the word pistis, the exact same word as Jesus used in John 3:16 for believe. There is no "notional" sense. it has a specific meaning you refuse to consider.
Of course he uses the word “pistis”, that is why we translate is as “faith”. The word is irrelevant, it is the context which determines its use.


:lmbo: That's the funniest thing I've heard all day!!!


If I say I’ll catch a train, I am not to be taken as using a net or a mouse trap to do so.

Because "catch" has more than one meaning. Pistis does NOT!!!

Paul is not using it to mean real faith because he defined faith as something other at Heb 11:1.

First, you are assuming Paul wrote Hebrews, which is hotly debated. Second, how faith is properly defined meets Hebrews 11:1 perfectly... an excerpt from the article I quoted shows that:

Pistis here is a matter of trust in a God who has demonstrated His ability to be a worthy patron, and the examples are those of clients who, knowing this ability, trust in God's record as a patronal provider. Hebrews 11:1 therefore is telling us that faith (trust in our patron, gained by conviction based on evidence) is the substance (the word here means an assurance, as in a setting under, a concrete essence or an abstract assurance) of things hoped for (this word means expected by trust, which is something earned!), and the evidence of that which is not seen, which in context means we expect, based on past performance, continuing favor from our patron, who has already proven Himself worthy of our trust by example, and this trust is our confidence in the fulfillment of future promises.


The use is notional, just as I have said. You don’t have a case. You can’t have faith in man: such is an oxymoron: faith relates to unseen things.


handled with ease above...


But try to answer the thread question. Given that it is a much better decision to choose for God than against, why is it one makes this better decision, and the other guy doesn't?
Ask the Atheists here which is the better decision... You'll get an entirely different answer from your statement here.
Ask him after her reaches hell and see whether you get the same answer. (Hint: Lazarus and the rich man).


At that point it is no longer faith, but sight.


With the ABILITY to receive the benefit provided they exercise trust (pistis) in Jesus. Some simply don't want to.
You have begged the question. Why do some want to, and others not? What makes the difference?

you have begged the original question in assuming there IS a difference in the two. So I guess one good begged question deserves another. Now interact with my WHOLE post please, and not just remove the evidences I present... :troll2:

[Ormly]

Why bother with this clown?

[A-Man]

So your hermeneutic is wrong: the context is not primarily what is written, but what is right.

The word is irrelevant, it is the context which determines its use.

Oh my.