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