There is no Free Will PERIOD

[Mark Quayle]

I caused my son to be born, does that mean I caused everything he decides to do? Does it mean that he has no choice in what he will do because I caused his birth?

Those are two separate questions —though you seem to think the one implies the other, it does not. He does obviously choose, as do all creatures in their various capacities on scales of reason and consciousness and/or sentience. All creatures are created and therefore, all they are do is caused to be —all they are and do is ESTABLISHED by God.

Both God, and you as a link within the chain of causation descending from God as First Cause, along with your father and mother and every other impinging fact, caused EVERYTHING that descended from you as a caused effect, to be and to do what they are and do. That includes your son.

That does not give him any excuse nor does it deny his moral responsibility to do what is right.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Maybe He didn’t want everything to be under His control. Would you want your loved ones to be under your control?

I'm not God, not to mention that it is self-contradictory foolishness to say that anyone can cause something uncaused. God, as First Cause, created all other fact (other than himself). He knew (even in your construction, as "omniscient") every tiniest detail and large principle that would result of his causation, yet caused it anyway. Thus, he established its existence.

He knew everyone except Noah and his family would be evil but He certainly didn’t enjoy it. It wasn’t something what He wanted them to do but it’s something He knew they would do.

Who says he enjoyed it? You seem to think that, unlike us, he can't plan for something he doesn't like in order to accomplish something larger and more important else that he does want. We know from scripture in Acts 2:23 and Isaiah 53:10, for instance, that "...it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer", and that it came to pass by "...God’s deliberate plan...".

This temporal existence is only preliminary to something not only infinitely larger, but infinitely more REAL, to the point that he compares this life to a vapor. If unhappiness, suffering and moral evil are necessary (and they are) in producing what will come later, it is worth causing it to be —and that, in every tiniest detail.

I'm wondering if you think that those who, according to God's deliberate plan, put Jesus to death on the cross, were not morally responsible for what they did. Or are you going with the illogical notion that He only vaguely intended this particular macro event, and left the details to mere chance? If they are responsible for their rebellion in putting Christ to death, by the specific intent of God for this particular event to take place, then also it cannot be proven to not be true concerning any and EVERY sin, and, logically, sinfulness itself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No it doesn’t mean that at all when you include the variable of free will. Free will adds an element of uncertainty to causation. Explain Luke 13:6-9 that’s a perfect biblical example of how free will adds an element of uncertainty.

There is no uncertainty with God. The fact we don't know something does not mean that something can be attributed to 'causation by uncertainty'. God knows it all, as even you will agree, I think. There is thus no such thing as mere chance.

“And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’ And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’ ””
‭‭Luke‬ ‭13‬:‭6‬-‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Here we have Jesus trying to save the tree and yet the outcome of the tree is uncertain. Why is that?

Who says "the outcome of the tree is uncertain", but you? To what do you liken this story, or, specifically, the tree that deserves to be cut down?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Where do you get the idea that anything can happen apart from His causation?

I can quote the verses again if you like.

“And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’ And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’ ””
‭‭Luke‬ ‭13‬:‭6‬-‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Why is the outcome of the tree still uncertain despite Jesus’ efforts to save the tree?

 

[BNR32FAN]

There is no uncertainty with God. The fact we don't know something does not mean that something can be attributed to 'causation by uncertainty'. God knows it all, as even you will agree, I think. There is thus no such thing as mere chance.

I never said that God doesn’t know if the tree will be saved or not but the passage clearly says that Jesus is nurturing the tree in an effort to save it and the tree might bear fruit and it might not. So why is there the possibility that the tree won’t be saved despite Jesus nurturing the tree in an effort to save it?

Who says "the outcome of the tree is uncertain", but you? To what do you liken this story, or, specifically, the tree that deserves to be cut down?

If it bears fruit fine but if not chop it down. Does that sound like a definite outcome to you?

 

[Neogaia777]

@BNR32FAN

Part of the reason Jesus tells "parables" that most usually don't give us the exact identities of the person's involved. is so that the reader must use discernment, as parables can be true on many multiple different levels, etc.

Most of the time they denote a certain kind of "relationship" for the people involved though, regardless of on what level of the exact person's are that are involved, etc. And I think Jesus actually wants us to try and apply them on multiple different levels, etc.

But I don't think this one can be true of a God who was always fully omniscient though, etc. Jesus and his biological father or God in the OT who is the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Christ in the New maybe, on it's highest level or form in this case maybe, then maybe Jesus and some of us on the lesser levels below that or those maybe, etc. But the reason Jesus doesn't give exact identities in a parable, but does describe/emphasize their relationships, etc, is so that we can see and discern the truths of them in multiple different ways, and on multiple different levels, etc.

Neither person is this parable seems to be fully omniscient though, etc, As neither one of them seems to know the 100% for sure outcome, etc. And if anything, this parable is about maybe second or third or more chances maybe, etc. And the man that wants to save the tree, is true of anyone who acts as a sort of intercessor between them and their higher authority of anyone who ever wants to plead the case of someone or something else or something, etc, or wants to try and buy more time for them to produce good fruit maybe, etc, or delay ultimate judgement for someone or something that they care about in this parable/case maybe, etc.

"Every tree that does not bear fruit gets cut down (eventually) and gets thrown into the fire (on judgement day), etc." (Matthew 7:19)

This parable is about mercy, and buying time for something or someone, etc.

But also seems to denote that ultimate judgement, cannot be delayed forever, etc.

The man in the parable is also going to a lot of great lengths to get the tree to come back alive and bear good fruit again also, etc.

And beyond people and their relationships, etc, this parable is also supposed to be true about Jesus, and Jerusalem/Israel, etc.

But it's true in a lot of ways, or on multiple different levels, etc. Which is why it is a "parable", etc.

And in these "parables", it is why exact identities are not given, but also at the same time, there is also a very strong emphasis on relationship, etc, which can be true on many multiple different levels.

That's what makes it a parable, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

@BNR32FAN

Part of the reason Jesus tells "parables" that most usually don't give us the exact identities of the person's involved. is so that the reader must use discernment, as parables can be true on many multiple different levels, etc.

Most of the time they denote a certain kind of "relationship" for the people involved though, regardless of on what level of the exact person's are that are involved, etc. And I think Jesus actually wants us to try and apply them on multiple different levels, etc.

But I don't think this one can be true of a God who was always fully omniscient though, etc. Jesus and his biological father or God in the OT who is the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Christ in the New maybe, on it's highest level or form in this case maybe, then maybe Jesus and some of us on the lesser levels below that or those maybe, etc. But the reason Jesus doesn't give exact identities in a parable, but does describe/emphasize their relationships, etc, is so that we can see and discern the truths of them in multiple different ways, and on multiple different levels, etc.

Neither person is this parable seems to be fully omniscient though, etc, As neither one of them seems to know the 100% for sure outcome, etc. And if anything, this parable is about maybe second or third or more chances maybe, etc. And the man that wants to save the tree, is true of anyone who acts as a sort of intercessor between them and their higher authority of anyone who ever wants to plead the case of someone or something else or something, etc, or wants to try and buy more time for them to produce good fruit maybe, etc, or delay ultimate judgement for someone or something that they care about in this parable/case maybe, etc.

"Every tree that does not bear fruit gets cut down (eventually) and gets thrown into the fire (on judgement day), etc." (Matthew 7:19)

This parable is about mercy, and buying time for something or someone, etc.

But also seems to denote that ultimate judgement, cannot be delayed forever, etc.

The man in the parable is also going to a lot of great lengths to get the tree to come back alive and bear good fruit again also, etc.

And beyond people and their relationships, etc, this parable is also supposed to be true about Jesus, and Jerusalem/Israel, etc.

But it's true in a lot of ways, or on multiple different levels, etc. Which is why it is a "parable", etc.

And in these "parables", it is why exact identities are not given, but also at the same time, there is also a very strong emphasis on relationship, etc, which can be true on many multiple different levels.

That's what makes it a parable, etc.

God Bless.

Also, without this interpretation that I have, you'll never even begin to understand how with Abraham and Issac, and with Abraham's near sacrifice of Issac, how it was one of the very first parables ever told also, etc.

But parables don't give exact identities, but very, very much strongly emphasize a person's, or many people's, relationships with another person (or people) or person's, places, or things, etc. They can be true many different ways, and on many different levels, etc. But at the same time not all, etc. Which is where we have to use discernment with them, etc. As sometimes the very many ways they cannot be true, or do not or cannot apply in a certain situation or circumstance, is sometimes just as important as the many ways that they do or can sometimes, etc.

Matthew 13:10-15

10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”

11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.’

God Bless.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I can quote the verses again if you like.

“And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’ And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’ ””
‭‭Luke‬ ‭13‬:‭6‬-‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Why is the outcome of the tree still uncertain despite Jesus’ efforts to save the tree?

And like I said before but apparently you didn't read it, what makes you think the outcome is uncertain?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I never said that God doesn’t know if the tree will be saved or not but the passage clearly says that Jesus is nurturing the tree in an effort to save it and the tree might bear fruit and it might not. So why is there the possibility that the tree won’t be saved despite Jesus nurturing the tree in an effort to save it?


If it bears fruit fine but if not chop it down. Does that sound like a definite outcome to you?

No. The passage does not say it might not. The passage is written for the purpose of demonstrating grace and need, and not random probability.

 

[Neogaia777]

@BNR32FAN

Part of the reason Jesus tells "parables" that most usually don't give us the exact identities of the person's involved. is so that the reader must use discernment, as parables can be true on many multiple different levels, etc.

Most of the time they denote a certain kind of "relationship" for the people involved though, regardless of on what level of the exact person's are that are involved, etc. And I think Jesus actually wants us to try and apply them on multiple different levels, etc.

But I don't think this one can be true of a God who was always fully omniscient though, etc. Jesus and his biological father or God in the OT who is the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Christ in the New maybe, on it's highest level or form in this case maybe, then maybe Jesus and some of us on the lesser levels below that or those maybe, etc. But the reason Jesus doesn't give exact identities in a parable, but does describe/emphasize their relationships, etc, is so that we can see and discern the truths of them in multiple different ways, and on multiple different levels, etc.

Neither person is this parable seems to be fully omniscient though, etc, As neither one of them seems to know the 100% for sure outcome, etc. And if anything, this parable is about maybe second or third or more chances maybe, etc. And the man that wants to save the tree, is true of anyone who acts as a sort of intercessor between them and their higher authority of anyone who ever wants to plead the case of someone or something else or something, etc, or wants to try and buy more time for them to produce good fruit maybe, etc, or delay ultimate judgement for someone or something that they care about in this parable/case maybe, etc.

"Every tree that does not bear fruit gets cut down (eventually) and gets thrown into the fire (on judgement day), etc." (Matthew 7:19)

This parable is about mercy, and buying time for something or someone, etc.

But also seems to denote that ultimate judgement, cannot be delayed forever, etc.

The man in the parable is also going to a lot of great lengths to get the tree to come back alive and bear good fruit again also, etc.

And beyond people and their relationships, etc, this parable is also supposed to be true about Jesus, and Jerusalem/Israel, etc.

But it's true in a lot of ways, or on multiple different levels, etc. Which is why it is a "parable", etc.

And in these "parables", it is why exact identities are not given, but also at the same time, there is also a very strong emphasis on relationship, etc, which can be true on many multiple different levels.

That's what makes it a parable, etc.

God Bless.

Also, without this interpretation that I have, you'll never even begin to understand how with Abraham and Issac, and with Abraham's near sacrifice of Issac, how it was one of the very first parables ever told also, etc.

But parables don't give exact identities, but very, very much strongly emphasize a person's, or many people's, relationships with another person (or people) or person's, places, or things, etc. They can be true many different ways, and on many different levels, etc. But at the same time not all, etc. Which is where we have to use discernment with them, etc. As sometimes the very many ways they cannot be true, or do not or cannot apply in a certain situation or circumstance, is sometimes just as important as the many ways that they do or can sometimes, etc.

Matthew 13:10-15

10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”

11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.’

God Bless.

@BNR32FAN

More than likely what that parable meant at the time that Jesus used it and said it was in reference to himself and Jerusalem or the Israelites or the world, and it not bearing any good fruit anymore, and YHWH was ready to cut it down, or judge it, or do away with it, etc.

But Jesus would be the man in this case, and his Word or words or teaching to them at the time would be him digging up the ground around it and putting fertilizer in the ground around it in order to see if it might still bear good fruit at a later time, etc.

But that is also not the only thing it can mean or can be talking about also. But can also maybe be some of us and Jesus and the people/things we are wanting to be saving/caring about the next time around maybe, etc, since it's Jesus that is going to be judging when he comes back a second time, etc. And in the meantime we have the same kind of heart as he did now back then, etc.

The thing (or another thing) about parables is, is that they also greatly depend on who is using them and how they are being used at the time also, etc. Which also greatly includes situation and circumstance, etc. Any of those things being changed or being different can change the meaning of any parable almost completely also, etc.

But understanding all the relationships involved, is still much, much more important than understanding the specific individual person's or places or things involved most of the time, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Jo555]

I often find that with these topics people are for one or the other when both are true, we just need to see how they fit.

I like to think of God's will as a large circle that encompasses humanity. Predestination is part of that circle.

Within the circle of God's will humanity's freewill is exercised. His choices will influence his journey, but it won't abolish God's will.

There is freewill, but it is contained within God's will.

 

[BNR32FAN]

@BNR32FAN

Part of the reason Jesus tells "parables" that most usually don't give us the exact identities of the person's involved. is so that the reader must use discernment, as parables can be true on many multiple different levels, etc.

Most of the time they denote a certain kind of "relationship" for the people involved though, regardless of on what level of the exact person's are that are involved, etc. And I think Jesus actually wants us to try and apply them on multiple different levels, etc.

But I don't think this one can be true of a God who was always fully omniscient though, etc. Jesus and his biological father or God in the OT who is the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Christ in the New maybe, on it's highest level or form in this case maybe, then maybe Jesus and some of us on the lesser levels below that or those maybe, etc. But the reason Jesus doesn't give exact identities in a parable, but does describe/emphasize their relationships, etc, is so that we can see and discern the truths of them in multiple different ways, and on multiple different levels, etc.

Neither person is this parable seems to be fully omniscient though, etc, As neither one of them seems to know the 100% for sure outcome, etc. And if anything, this parable is about maybe second or third or more chances maybe, etc. And the man that wants to save the tree, is true of anyone who acts as a sort of intercessor between them and their higher authority of anyone who ever wants to plead the case of someone or something else or something, etc, or wants to try and buy more time for them to produce good fruit maybe, etc, or delay ultimate judgement for someone or something that they care about in this parable/case maybe, etc.

"Every tree that does not bear fruit gets cut down (eventually) and gets thrown into the fire (on judgement day), etc." (Matthew 7:19)

This parable is about mercy, and buying time for something or someone, etc.

But also seems to denote that ultimate judgement, cannot be delayed forever, etc.

The man in the parable is also going to a lot of great lengths to get the tree to come back alive and bear good fruit again also, etc.

And beyond people and their relationships, etc, this parable is also supposed to be true about Jesus, and Jerusalem/Israel, etc.

But it's true in a lot of ways, or on multiple different levels, etc. Which is why it is a "parable", etc.

And in these "parables", it is why exact identities are not given, but also at the same time, there is also a very strong emphasis on relationship, etc, which can be true on many multiple different levels.

That's what makes it a parable, etc.

God Bless.

Luke 13:6-9 has a similar theme to the parable of the banquet invitation in Luke 14 where the invitations that were sent by the Master were ignored so He sent invitations to everyone. This is another illustration that God does not control who obeys and who doesn’t.

 

[stevevw]

I think the idea of no free will only makes sense for a materialist and reductionist worldview. Eveything is reduced to its material mechanics. Science excluded the subject from its measure of reality, But now we are seeing the observer and subject coming back in through QM.

So in that sense subjective consciousness may have an influence on reality. We are not passive players when it comes to creating reality but entangled in the equation. So we can have a real influence on outcomes through our choices.

 

[Jo555]

I often find that with these topics people are for one or the other when both are true, we just need to see how they fit.

I like to think of God's will as a large circle that encompasses humanity. Predestination is part of that circle.

Within the circle of God's will humanity's freewill is exercised. His choices will influence his journey, but it won't abolish God's will.

There is freewill, but it is contained within God's will.

That said i do believe there is a case for no freewill, but it is in regards to being born into sin (Romans 7). In the bible it states that God knew we would not choose well due to our sin nature, so He promised to give us a new heart by grace through faith and Jesus fulfilled that for us.

Having a choice pointed that out for us, but the choice in that regard is more of an illusion and God had to show us this illusion.

 

[Jo555]

I often find that with these topics people are for one or the other when both are true, we just need to see how they fit.

I like to think of God's will as a large circle that encompasses humanity. Predestination is part of that circle.

Within the circle of God's will humanity's freewill is exercised. His choices will influence his journey, but it won't abolish God's will.

There is freewill, but it is contained within God's will.

That said i do believe there is a case for no freewill, but it is in regards to being born into sin (Romans 7). In the bible it states that God knew we would not choose well due to our sin nature, so He promised to give us a new heart by grace through faith and Jesus fulfilled that for us.

Having a choice pointed that out for us, but the choice in that regard is more of an illusion and God had to show us this illus

 

[zoidar]

Da 4:35?

Da 4:35 describes God's overarching rule. He can do as He likes and no one has the right to question what He does. I don't see any evidence of micromanaging. Where do you see it?

 

[Clare73]

Da 4:35 describes God's overarching rule. He can do as He likes and no one has the right to question what He does. I don't see any evidence of micromanaging. Where do you see it?

I am demonstrating sovereignty.

 

[zoidar]

I am demonstrating sovereignty.

Yes, God is sovereign.

 

[zoidar]

Mark Quayle said:
What makes you choose it is the strongest and most prevalent influences, affecting your mental and physical desires. I don't see how you can think that any choice is made out of a void. There are always causes. Even God chose out of his desire (if "desire" is a worthy descriptor).

For God to have his choices predetermined would imply a lot of false things —most notably, that God answers to a power higher than himself. I think you and I both agree that is not the case. He simply IS, and we do not simply exist, but had a beginning; we are creatures. We are not on any scale of responsibility compared to him.

Mark Quayle said:
Of course it cannot. Particularly libertarian freewill in the creature! At best that is a metaphysical proposal. And more to the point, it is a false construction, self-defeating. It invokes either secondary first causes, or the force of mere chance, both of which are self-contradictory.

No, of course, science doesn't even know what consciousness is.

Mark Quayle said:
I think that you would agree that compared to God, our consciousness and sentience and self-awareness hardly figures on any scale.

No, I have no way to calculate such a thing as how God makes all his intentions come to pass, nor do I care to attempt it. I only hold to that belief because of the logical chains of causation —well, that, and the fact that God says much to that same effect.

Mark Quayle said:
Then, as I said, you invoke secondary first causes, which is logically self-contradictory.

There can be only one first cause. Agreed? That would be God, the only "uncaused causer", maker and ruler of all that is not him. Yet libertarian freewill proposes uncaused causing by those who choose, because (according to the libertarian) they are not caused to make any particular choice. So these choosers —supposedly uncaused causers— who were at least caused to exist, and whose existence is maintained at every moment by their Creator, somehow out of nothingness make choices, beginning their own chains of cause and effect with no preceding causes.

Mark Quayle said:
Do me a favor and watch the first half, if not the whole thing, of this video. In it, you will hear described in extremely condensed manner, enough of the story of our redemption, beginning with the account of Joseph's coat of many colors, a whole series of seemingly 'improbable' events, where I have to imagine, from your POV, that you would see many many multiple interventions by God to keep history steered toward the cross, (which I think you will agree that the cross, at least, was predetermined by God) —enough of the story, I say, that it seems to me impossible to not see God's providence and causation throughout. And in the whole story, are human creatures making choices, that inexorably result in the Cross.

I wish I knew how to put this, that comes instinctively to me. And I can't remember the term I heard from a scientific source that made a study on causation, that, though I don't think it conclusively proved the point, demonstrated the intricate interrelationship of what may otherwise seem to be unrelated events impacting all other identifiable "events" or facts. Instinctively, I know that all things are interrelated, (though I'm not so clear that the butterfly's wingbeat in China is part of the Hurricane simultaneously occurring on the other side of the globe. That is, instinctively, I think the wingbeat must precede the hurricane by some given period of time). But, the point is, all fact (but the One) must descend causally from the One Fact, who is "Cause Itself". Even the principle of causation is of HIS derivation, and is not itself raw fact.

So while it may not be logically necessary —to our minds, at least— to see that "micromanaging cosmos....is necessary....for God to do to have His will come to pass", it does logically follow, and is according to accepted principles, unlike the notion of absolutely self-derived individual potential of God's creatures. Sure, God could go around "flying by the seat of his pants", so to speak, to correct things gone awry, and working all self-generated fact out for his ends, but that denies an awful lot of the logically necessary attributes of God, to include Omnipotence, Simplicity and Immanence.

To add to this, and like it, IF it is universal fact that God "micromanages cosmos", then things are entirely logical as I have described, and not as libertarian freewill does. But IF it is not universal fact that God "micromanages cosmos", then all sorts of chaotic and self-contradictory notions ensue, that imply both 'chance' and 'secondary first causes'.

As for personal responsibility, consider this, if you need to, as cold hard fact, created fact and not simply philosophical considerations, that God is altogether pure, whose burning purity will not endure rebellion against himself, but must destroy it. (And, any departure from "cold hard fact" is not found in God's creation, but in God himself, and his purposes.) Then, in this kind of consideration, we are not malleable creation, but only the vessels made for his purposes, described in Romans 9. But some of these vessels, he created for the purpose of demonstrating his mercy and his glory, quite apart from anything they did or deserved. (While that picture is not the whole story, it does demonstrate the force of causation as generated by God alone, and demonstrates the creature as being only another "cog in the machine-works", incapable of libertarian ability to cause). Thus, morality is simple "did this and compensation for lack of purity resulted"— we have "fallen short" of the glory of God, and God will destroy us, but for his mercy and his purposes.

I'm not presenting the above paragraph as fact, but as simply a way to look at things, that does demonstrate the huge difference between where we figure on the scale of personal responsibility, and where God is. That we "should have done" and did not, can fall within the huge range of causation, without contradicting personal responsibility. God's creating necessarily implies that absolutely all fact, specifically in this context, absolutely all ability and choice by the creature, is established by God, and impossible without him having established it. God's creating also necessarily implies that our level of morality is nowhere near his. This is not about our ability to 'be good', but about our need for the power of his purity —our distance from him, vs being 'in him'.

I see once again I have rambled on. I hope something here is useful to you. Thanks for the fun.

I have been thinking how to respond, but I don't know. It's just not a problem for me if a created being can make free libertarian choices (secondary causes) outside the chain of previous causes. I would not say the free libertarian choice is a first cause, because it's caused by the being's free libertarian will and the free libertarian will is caused by God. And you will ask what this free libertarian will is and I can only say: "It just is." So no, free libertarian choices are not random, they stem from the will. To say it's random because we lack understanding I think is a mistake.

 

[Jo555]

Those are two separate questions —though you seem to think the one implies the other, it does not. He does obviously choose, as do all creatures in their various capacities on scales of reason and consciousness and/or sentience. All creatures are created and therefore, all they are do is caused to be —all they are and do is ESTABLISHED by God.

Both God, and you as a link within the chain of causation descending from God as First Cause, along with your father and mother and every other impinging fact, caused EVERYTHING that descended from you as a caused effect, to be and to do what they are and do. That includes your son.

That does not give him any excuse nor does it deny his moral responsibility to do what is right.

What? Am i the only one lost? What is the point? Why complicate matters?

The simplicity of the gospel is foolishness to the world's way of thinking and reasoning.

That said i do believe there is a case for no freewill, but it is in regards to being born into sin (Romans 7). In the bible it states that God knew we would not choose well due to our sin nature, so He promised to give us a new heart by grace through faith and Jesus fulfilled that for us.

Having a choice pointed that out for us, but the choice in that regard is more of an illusion and God had to show us this illus

I also find this conversation very confusing with minor details that lead to a rabbit hole that appears dark with no ending.

You have to start with the basics, with your foundation. I find this conversation everywhere, but I'm not very smart and for the first time in my life I'm thinking that may be a good thing.

My advice, don't get caught up in conversations that don't appear to be leading anywhere productive. State your case and move forward, and on that note I'm moving on as my head hurts.