Responsibility and Causation

[His clay]

I've read a few back and forth exchanges in a different forum over the topic of responsibility and causation. I hope to write a small piece addressing various issues informing that discussion.

The Prior Discussion
One poster advocates that God is the ultimate cause of all things, but people are the efficient cause of their sin.
The other poster advocates that each human being is the ultimate cause of his sin, and he accuses the other poster of making God responsible for man's sin.
This is a basic summary of their exchange.

Competing Views of Responsibility and Human Freedom
In that prior discussion, both posters employ different frameworks for understanding the nature of human freedom and responsibility. This difference leads both in radically different directions. The second poster holds to a modified or weaker form of libertarian freedom, and the first poster probably holds to a form of compatibilistic freedom.

Two key features inform libertarian freedom. Ultimate human causality with respect to the will, or at least an ultimate first move of the will in determining future states of the will, this ultimacy defines the first aspect of the poster's view of libertarian freedom. The second key feature is the ability to do otherwise; at minimum this is true with respect to that initial first choice. Apparently, this is not true for future choices that have been determined by the first.

A few basic features inform a compatiblistic view of the will and choice-making. Human choices are made on account of causal reasons. Hence, as Jonathan Edwards pointed out, "to choose is to prefer." A choice is a selection in keeping with one's highest preference. Often times this is described in other terms of a person choosing what he wants. When a person does what he most wants or preferrs, then he is responsible for the choice. Because choices are inherently caused, the type of causation is extremely important. Some types of causation do remove responsibility while other types of causation do not remove responsibility.

Libertarian freedom, because of its view of human ultimacy, sees any form of ultimate divine causation as removing human accountability.
Compatibilistic freedom, because of its view of human nature, sees a clear difference between transcendent causation and imminent, internal causation. Thusly, human accountability is maintain even though the person could not have done otherwise.

Causal Conflation Fallacy
Because libertarian freedom holds to human ultimacy with respect to at least the initial movement of the will, the advocate will reject any and all forms of causation that might make the will unable to choose otherwise. Unfortunately, this leads the advocate to ignore the important distinctions of the compatibilist. The distinctions between ultimate, proximate, primary, secondary, efficient, internal, external, imminent, and transcendent are all ignored. This leads to the causal conflation fallacy and two people talking past each other. The libertarian advocate deceptively conflates all forms of causation into only "cause." Even if a person, on compatibilist terms, does something that they want to do, and the person is the immediate cause of their sin, the libertarian ignores all of these extremely important distinctions (establishing responsibility upon non-libertarian grounds) and focuses upon God's ultimate causality. This "turning a blind eye" to radically important distinctions of causality is what I am calling the "causal conflation fallacy."

The fact is that the Bible advocates a rather complex, multifaceted system of cause and effect. Take the crucifixion as an example. One of my teachers asked the class, "who caused Jesus' death." Note the word "cause" here. Also note the ambiguity. (1) We can note the language of Is 53 as the Father crushes the Son. (2) We can note that Jesus says that no one takes his life, but he lays it down. (3) We can note the multiple human groups involved in the false condemnation of Jesus. (4) We can note the Roman soldiers as they whipped and nailed Jesus to the tree. (5) We can note our own role in contributing our sin, as our sin was laid upon the spotless lamb of God. In each of these examples a different type of causation is biblically warranted. In the realm of providence, God's sustaining hand is often differentiated from His imminent causation. You also have different persons of the Trinity contributing to different causal roles in the application of salvation. In short, the Bible advocates a rather complex, multifaceted system of cause and effect. The causal conflation fallacy ignores the various types with only the sole focus of maintaining human ultimacy with respect to at least the first move of the will. Do compabilists claim to know all things with respect to responsibility? No, but much of what they say goes ignored by the causal conflation fallacy.

Conclusion
A few concluding thoughts encapsulate this post so far. Ideas have consequences; they lead people to different conclusions (note the causal reality of beliefs upon conclusions, and the conclusions lead to decisions to post). The libertarian view of the will leads its advocate to lie and grossly distort the compatibilistic view. The lying takes place when the accusation is made that the other person is making God responsible for sin. A difference in understanding responsibility, choice-making, and causation ought to be acknowledged. This difference ought to lead to a nuanced understanding of important causal distinctions, but sometimes these distinctions are glossed over leading people to make false accusations. I hope that this post proves helpful to aid people to wade through some difficult discussions. Does this post address every issue? Not by a long shot, but it serves as an elementary springboard.

 

[Carbon]

I've read a few back and forth exchanges in a different forum over the topic of responsibility and causation. I hope to write a small piece addressing various issues informing that discussion.

The Prior Discussion
One poster advocates that God is the ultimate cause of all things, but people are the efficient cause of their sin.
The other poster advocates that each human being is the ultimate cause of his sin, and he accuses the other poster of making God responsible for man's sin.
This is a basic summary of their exchange.

Competing Views of Responsibility and Human Freedom
In that prior discussion, both posters employ different frameworks for understanding the nature of human freedom and responsibility. This difference leads both in radically different directions. The second poster holds to a modified or weaker form of libertarian freedom, and the first poster probably holds to a form of compatibilistic freedom.

Two key features inform libertarian freedom. Ultimate human causality with respect to the will, or at least an ultimate first move of the will in determining future states of the will, this ultimacy defines the first aspect of the poster's view of libertarian freedom. The second key feature is the ability to do otherwise; at minimum this is true with respect to that initial first choice. Apparently, this is not true for future choices that have been determined by the first.

A few basic features inform a compatiblistic view of the will and choice-making. Human choices are made on account of causal reasons. Hence, as Jonathan Edwards pointed out, "to choose is to prefer." A choice is a selection in keeping with one's highest preference. Often times this is described in other terms of a person choosing what he wants. When a person does what he most wants or preferrs, then he is responsible for the choice. Because choices are inherently caused, the type of causation is extremely important. Some types of causation do remove responsibility while other types of causation do not remove responsibility.

Libertarian freedom, because of its view of human ultimacy, sees any form of ultimate divine causation as removing human accountability.
Compatibilistic freedom, because of its view of human nature, sees a clear difference between transcendent causation and imminent, internal causation. Thusly, human accountability is maintain even though the person could not have done otherwise.

Causal Conflation Fallacy
Because libertarian freedom holds to human ultimacy with respect to at least the initial movement of the will, the advocate will reject any and all forms of causation that might make the will unable to choose otherwise. Unfortunately, this leads the advocate to ignore the important distinctions of the compatibilist. The distinctions between ultimate, proximate, primary, secondary, efficient, internal, external, imminent, and transcendent are all ignored. This leads to the causal conflation fallacy and two people talking past each other. The libertarian advocate deceptively conflates all forms of causation into only "cause." Even if a person, on compatibilist terms, does something that they want to do, and the person is the immediate cause of their sin, the libertarian ignores all of these extremely important distinctions (establishing responsibility upon non-libertarian grounds) and focuses upon God's ultimate causality. This "turning a blind eye" to radically important distinctions of causality is what I am calling the "causal conflation fallacy."

The fact is that the Bible advocates a rather complex, multifaceted system of cause and effect. Take the crucifixion as an example. One of my teachers asked the class, "who caused Jesus' death." Note the word "cause" here. Also note the ambiguity. (1) We can note the language of Is 53 as the Father crushes the Son. (2) We can note that Jesus says that no one takes his life, but he lays it down. (3) We can note the multiple human groups involved in the false condemnation of Jesus. (4) We can note the Roman soldiers as they whipped and nailed Jesus to the tree. (5) We can note our own role in contributing our sin, as our sin was laid upon the spotless lamb of God. In each of these examples a different type of causation is biblically warranted. In the realm of providence, God's sustaining hand is often differentiated from His imminent causation. You also have different persons of the Trinity contributing to different causal roles in the application of salvation. In short, the Bible advocates a rather complex, multifaceted system of cause and effect. The causal conflation fallacy ignores the various types with only the sole focus of maintaining human ultimacy with respect to at least the first move of the will. Do compabilists claim to know all things with respect to responsibility? No, but much of what they say goes ignored by the causal conflation fallacy.

Conclusion
A few concluding thoughts encapsulate this post so far. Ideas have consequences; they lead people to different conclusions (note the causal reality of beliefs upon conclusions, and the conclusions lead to decisions to post). The libertarian view of the will leads its advocate to lie and grossly distort the compatibilistic view. The lying takes place when the accusation is made that the other person is making God responsible for sin. A difference in understanding responsibility, choice-making, and causation ought to be acknowledged. This difference ought to lead to a nuanced understanding of important causal distinctions, but sometimes these distinctions are glossed over leading people to make false accusations. I hope that this post proves helpful to aid people to wade through some difficult discussions. Does this post address every issue? Not by a long shot, but it serves as an elementary springboard.

Interesting, even though I have to read through it a few times.
Makes sense.

 

[CCShorts]

I've read a few back and forth exchanges in a different forum over the topic of responsibility and causation. I hope to write a small piece addressing various issues informing that discussion.

The Prior Discussion
One poster advocates that God is the ultimate cause of all things, but people are the efficient cause of their sin.
The other poster advocates that each human being is the ultimate cause of his sin, and he accuses the other poster of making God responsible for man's sin.
This is a basic summary of their exchange.

Competing Views of Responsibility and Human Freedom
In that prior discussion, both posters employ different frameworks for understanding the nature of human freedom and responsibility. This difference leads both in radically different directions. The second poster holds to a modified or weaker form of libertarian freedom, and the first poster probably holds to a form of compatibilistic freedom.

Two key features inform libertarian freedom. Ultimate human causality with respect to the will, or at least an ultimate first move of the will in determining future states of the will, this ultimacy defines the first aspect of the poster's view of libertarian freedom. The second key feature is the ability to do otherwise; at minimum this is true with respect to that initial first choice. Apparently, this is not true for future choices that have been determined by the first.

A few basic features inform a compatiblistic view of the will and choice-making. Human choices are made on account of causal reasons. Hence, as Jonathan Edwards pointed out, "to choose is to prefer." A choice is a selection in keeping with one's highest preference. Often times this is described in other terms of a person choosing what he wants. When a person does what he most wants or preferrs, then he is responsible for the choice. Because choices are inherently caused, the type of causation is extremely important. Some types of causation do remove responsibility while other types of causation do not remove responsibility.

Libertarian freedom, because of its view of human ultimacy, sees any form of ultimate divine causation as removing human accountability.
Compatibilistic freedom, because of its view of human nature, sees a clear difference between transcendent causation and imminent, internal causation. Thusly, human accountability is maintain even though the person could not have done otherwise.

Causal Conflation Fallacy
Because libertarian freedom holds to human ultimacy with respect to at least the initial movement of the will, the advocate will reject any and all forms of causation that might make the will unable to choose otherwise. Unfortunately, this leads the advocate to ignore the important distinctions of the compatibilist. The distinctions between ultimate, proximate, primary, secondary, efficient, internal, external, imminent, and transcendent are all ignored. This leads to the causal conflation fallacy and two people talking past each other. The libertarian advocate deceptively conflates all forms of causation into only "cause." Even if a person, on compatibilist terms, does something that they want to do, and the person is the immediate cause of their sin, the libertarian ignores all of these extremely important distinctions (establishing responsibility upon non-libertarian grounds) and focuses upon God's ultimate causality. This "turning a blind eye" to radically important distinctions of causality is what I am calling the "causal conflation fallacy."

The fact is that the Bible advocates a rather complex, multifaceted system of cause and effect. Take the crucifixion as an example. One of my teachers asked the class, "who caused Jesus' death." Note the word "cause" here. Also note the ambiguity. (1) We can note the language of Is 53 as the Father crushes the Son. (2) We can note that Jesus says that no one takes his life, but he lays it down. (3) We can note the multiple human groups involved in the false condemnation of Jesus. (4) We can note the Roman soldiers as they whipped and nailed Jesus to the tree. (5) We can note our own role in contributing our sin, as our sin was laid upon the spotless lamb of God. In each of these examples a different type of causation is biblically warranted. In the realm of providence, God's sustaining hand is often differentiated from His imminent causation. You also have different persons of the Trinity contributing to different causal roles in the application of salvation. In short, the Bible advocates a rather complex, multifaceted system of cause and effect. The causal conflation fallacy ignores the various types with only the sole focus of maintaining human ultimacy with respect to at least the first move of the will. Do compabilists claim to know all things with respect to responsibility? No, but much of what they say goes ignored by the causal conflation fallacy.

Conclusion
A few concluding thoughts encapsulate this post so far. Ideas have consequences; they lead people to different conclusions (note the causal reality of beliefs upon conclusions, and the conclusions lead to decisions to post). The libertarian view of the will leads its advocate to lie and grossly distort the compatibilistic view. The lying takes place when the accusation is made that the other person is making God responsible for sin. A difference in understanding responsibility, choice-making, and causation ought to be acknowledged. This difference ought to lead to a nuanced understanding of important causal distinctions, but sometimes these distinctions are glossed over leading people to make false accusations. I hope that this post proves helpful to aid people to wade through some difficult discussions. Does this post address every issue? Not by a long shot, but it serves as an elementary springboard.

My response seeks to introduce a fresh perspective and spark conversation using the analogy of a story written by an author. By examining how an author plans, purposes, determines, and causes events within a story, we can gain insight into moral responsibility within the context of God's role as the ultimate planner and sustainer of creation.

The Story Analogy:
Imagine a story crafted by an author. The author creates the characters, their thoughts, actions, and the entire plot. The author is the ultimate planner, purposer, determiner, and sustainer of everything that occurs within the story. The characters, within the confines of the story, have a degree of freedom and agency, allowing them to make choices and carry out actions. However, every aspect of their existence and the course of events is ultimately guided and controlled by the author.

Within the story, the characters' freedom and agency are limited by the boundaries set by the author. While they have the ability to make choices and carry out actions, these choices and actions are ultimately within the predetermined framework of the story. The author has meticulously planned and orchestrated the events, weaving a narrative that unfolds according to the author's intention.

Similarly, in the grand narrative of creation, God assumes the role of the ultimate author. Just as characters in a story have a degree of freedom and agency, humans possess the capacity to make choices and carry out actions within the boundaries of God's design. However, every aspect of human existence and the unfolding of events is ultimately guided and controlled by God's sovereign plan and purpose.

Responsibility within the Story Analogy:
Within the story, the characters possess a level of responsibility for their actions. They are accountable for their choices and behaviors based on the moral framework established by the author. The author sets the rules and guidelines that govern the moral universe of the story. The characters' moral responsibility is limited to the story's context and does not extend beyond it.

The author's meticulous planning and control over the story's events do not diminish the characters' moral responsibility. Just as the characters are responsible for their choices and actions within the story, humans, as the characters in God's creation, bear moral responsibility for their actions within the confines of the created world.

God as the Ultimate Author:
Drawing the parallel between God and the author of a story, we see that God, as the transcendent creator and sustainer of all things, possesses ultimate control and authority over every aspect of existence. God's power extends to the initial formation and ongoing existence of creation. Nothing occurs outside the purview of God's direct causation.

In this understanding, God's role as the ultimate planner, purposer, determiner, and sustainer does not absolve humans of moral responsibility. Just as characters in a story have moral responsibility within the framework established by the author, humans have moral responsibility within the framework established by God.

God's Moral Framework:
God, as the author of creation, has established a moral framework for human beings to follow. This framework defines what is right and wrong, just as the author sets the moral guidelines within the story. Human beings are accountable for their actions within this moral framework.

However, it is important to note that God's moral responsibility operates on a different level than that of humans. While humans are morally responsible within the created world, God, as the transcendent creator, exists beyond the confines of creation and is not subject to the same moral framework. God's actions are not defined as sinful or evil within the context of His sovereign control and authority over creation.
Responsibility to God does not presuppose freedom from God!

…

 

[Eleanor]

I've read a few back and forth exchanges in a different forum over the topic of responsibility and causation. I hope to write a small piece addressing various issues informing that discussion.

The Prior Discussion
One poster advocates that God is the ultimate cause of all things, but people are the efficient cause of their sin.
The other poster advocates that each human being is the ultimate cause of his sin, and he accuses the other poster of making God responsible for man's sin.
This is a basic summary of their exchange.

Competing Views of Responsibility and Human Freedom
In that prior discussion, both posters employ different frameworks for understanding the nature of human freedom and responsibility. This difference leads both in radically different directions. The second poster holds to a modified or weaker form of libertarian freedom, and the first poster probably holds to a form of compatibilistic freedom.

Two key features inform libertarian freedom. Ultimate human causality with respect to the will, or at least an ultimate first move of the will in determining future states of the will, this ultimacy defines the first aspect of the poster's view of libertarian freedom. The second key feature is the ability to do otherwise; at minimum this is true with respect to that initial first choice. Apparently, this is not true for future choices that have been determined by the first.

A few basic features inform a compatiblistic view of the will and choice-making. Human choices are made on account of causal reasons. Hence, as Jonathan Edwards pointed out, "to choose is to prefer." A choice is a selection in keeping with one's highest preference. Often times this is described in other terms of a person choosing what he wants. When a person does what he most wants or preferrs, then he is responsible for the choice. Because choices are inherently caused, the type of causation is extremely important. Some types of causation do remove responsibility while other types of causation do not remove responsibility.

Libertarian freedom, because of its view of human ultimacy, sees any form of ultimate divine causation as removing human accountability.
Compatibilistic freedom, because of its view of human nature, sees a clear difference between transcendent causation and imminent, internal causation. Thusly, human accountability is maintain even though the person could not have done otherwise.

Causal Conflation Fallacy
Because libertarian freedom holds to human ultimacy with respect to at least the initial movement of the will, the advocate will reject any and all forms of causation that might make the will unable to choose otherwise. Unfortunately, this leads the advocate to ignore the important distinctions of the compatibilist. The distinctions between ultimate, proximate, primary, secondary, efficient, internal, external, imminent, and transcendent are all ignored. This leads to the causal conflation fallacy and two people talking past each other. The libertarian advocate deceptively conflates all forms of causation into only "cause." Even if a person, on compatibilist terms, does something that they want to do, and the person is the immediate cause of their sin, the libertarian ignores all of these extremely important distinctions (establishing responsibility upon non-libertarian grounds) and focuses upon God's ultimate causality. This "turning a blind eye" to radically important distinctions of causality is what I am calling the "causal conflation fallacy."

The fact is that the Bible advocates a rather complex, multifaceted system of cause and effect. Take the crucifixion as an example. One of my teachers asked the class, "who caused Jesus' death." Note the word "cause" here. Also note the ambiguity. (1) We can note the language of Is 53 as the Father crushes the Son. (2) We can note that Jesus says that no one takes his life, but he lays it down. (3) We can note the multiple human groups involved in the false condemnation of Jesus. (4) We can note the Roman soldiers as they whipped and nailed Jesus to the tree. (5) We can note our own role in contributing our sin, as our sin was laid upon the spotless lamb of God. In each of these examples a different type of causation is biblically warranted. In the realm of providence, God's sustaining hand is often differentiated from His imminent causation. You also have different persons of the Trinity contributing to different causal roles in the application of salvation. In short, the Bible advocates a rather complex, multifaceted system of cause and effect. The causal conflation fallacy ignores the various types with only the sole focus of maintaining human ultimacy with respect to at least the first move of the will. Do compabilists claim to know all things with respect to responsibility? No, but much of what they say goes ignored by the causal conflation fallacy.

Conclusion
A few concluding thoughts encapsulate this post so far. Ideas have consequences; they lead people to different conclusions (note the causal reality of beliefs upon conclusions, and the conclusions lead to decisions to post). The libertarian view of the will leads its advocate to lie and grossly distort the compatibilistic view. The lying takes place when the accusation is made that the other person is making God responsible for sin. A difference in understanding responsibility, choice-making, and causation ought to be acknowledged. This difference ought to lead to a nuanced understanding of important causal distinctions, but sometimes these distinctions are glossed over leading people to make false accusations. I hope that this post proves helpful to aid people to wade through some difficult discussions. Does this post address every issue? Not by a long shot, but it serves as an elementary springboard.

Well done, good luck with that.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

I've read a few back and forth exchanges in a different forum over the topic of responsibility and causation. I hope to write a small piece addressing various issues informing that discussion.

The Prior Discussion
One poster advocates that God is the ultimate cause of all things, but people are the efficient cause of their sin.
The other poster advocates that each human being is the ultimate cause of his sin, and he accuses the other poster of making God responsible for man's sin.
This is a basic summary of their exchange....

There have been a great many trees slain to put forth thoughts on this subject before us. I think you will find yourself in good company with the attempt.

 

[Reformedguy]

I've read a few back and forth exchanges in a different forum over the topic of responsibility and causation. I hope to write a small piece addressing various issues informing that discussion.

The Prior Discussion
One poster advocates that God is the ultimate cause of all things, but people are the efficient cause of their sin.
The other poster advocates that each human being is the ultimate cause of his sin, and he accuses the other poster of making God responsible for man's sin.
This is a basic summary of their exchange.

Competing Views of Responsibility and Human Freedom
In that prior discussion, both posters employ different frameworks for understanding the nature of human freedom and responsibility. This difference leads both in radically different directions. The second poster holds to a modified or weaker form of libertarian freedom, and the first poster probably holds to a form of compatibilistic freedom.

Two key features inform libertarian freedom. Ultimate human causality with respect to the will, or at least an ultimate first move of the will in determining future states of the will, this ultimacy defines the first aspect of the poster's view of libertarian freedom. The second key feature is the ability to do otherwise; at minimum this is true with respect to that initial first choice. Apparently, this is not true for future choices that have been determined by the first.

A few basic features inform a compatiblistic view of the will and choice-making. Human choices are made on account of causal reasons. Hence, as Jonathan Edwards pointed out, "to choose is to prefer." A choice is a selection in keeping with one's highest preference. Often times this is described in other terms of a person choosing what he wants. When a person does what he most wants or preferrs, then he is responsible for the choice. Because choices are inherently caused, the type of causation is extremely important. Some types of causation do remove responsibility while other types of causation do not remove responsibility.

Libertarian freedom, because of its view of human ultimacy, sees any form of ultimate divine causation as removing human accountability.
Compatibilistic freedom, because of its view of human nature, sees a clear difference between transcendent causation and imminent, internal causation. Thusly, human accountability is maintain even though the person could not have done otherwise.

Causal Conflation Fallacy
Because libertarian freedom holds to human ultimacy with respect to at least the initial movement of the will, the advocate will reject any and all forms of causation that might make the will unable to choose otherwise. Unfortunately, this leads the advocate to ignore the important distinctions of the compatibilist. The distinctions between ultimate, proximate, primary, secondary, efficient, internal, external, imminent, and transcendent are all ignored. This leads to the causal conflation fallacy and two people talking past each other. The libertarian advocate deceptively conflates all forms of causation into only "cause." Even if a person, on compatibilist terms, does something that they want to do, and the person is the immediate cause of their sin, the libertarian ignores all of these extremely important distinctions (establishing responsibility upon non-libertarian grounds) and focuses upon God's ultimate causality. This "turning a blind eye" to radically important distinctions of causality is what I am calling the "causal conflation fallacy."

The fact is that the Bible advocates a rather complex, multifaceted system of cause and effect. Take the crucifixion as an example. One of my teachers asked the class, "who caused Jesus' death." Note the word "cause" here. Also note the ambiguity. (1) We can note the language of Is 53 as the Father crushes the Son. (2) We can note that Jesus says that no one takes his life, but he lays it down. (3) We can note the multiple human groups involved in the false condemnation of Jesus. (4) We can note the Roman soldiers as they whipped and nailed Jesus to the tree. (5) We can note our own role in contributing our sin, as our sin was laid upon the spotless lamb of God. In each of these examples a different type of causation is biblically warranted. In the realm of providence, God's sustaining hand is often differentiated from His imminent causation. You also have different persons of the Trinity contributing to different causal roles in the application of salvation. In short, the Bible advocates a rather complex, multifaceted system of cause and effect. The causal conflation fallacy ignores the various types with only the sole focus of maintaining human ultimacy with respect to at least the first move of the will. Do compabilists claim to know all things with respect to responsibility? No, but much of what they say goes ignored by the causal conflation fallacy.

Conclusion
A few concluding thoughts encapsulate this post so far. Ideas have consequences; they lead people to different conclusions (note the causal reality of beliefs upon conclusions, and the conclusions lead to decisions to post). The libertarian view of the will leads its advocate to lie and grossly distort the compatibilistic view. The lying takes place when the accusation is made that the other person is making God responsible for sin. A difference in understanding responsibility, choice-making, and causation ought to be acknowledged. This difference ought to lead to a nuanced understanding of important causal distinctions, but sometimes these distinctions are glossed over leading people to make false accusations. I hope that this post proves helpful to aid people to wade through some difficult discussions. Does this post address every issue? Not by a long shot, but it serves as an elementary springboard.

Proclaiming two ultimate causes in the universe would be illogical. Would you agree??

 

[His clay]

Proclaiming two ultimate causes in the universe would be illogical. Would you agree??

I'm going to have to get a bit technical. If you are saying that it is a contradiction then you will have to demonstrate that the two ultimate causes are dealing with the same field or matter and at the same time.

For example, it would not be a contradiction to say that God is the ultimate cause of creation, but later people libertarianly choose and are thusly ultimate causes in a different way at a different time. The timing here is different and thusly not a contradiction.

However, it is a contradiction to say that the Bible says that all things (post-creation) are sustained by Him and thusly not ultimate causes. Libertarian freedom advocates ultimate human causality within the confines of God's sustained universe. The timing here is the same, and both ultimate causes are advocated of the same thing (God is the will's ultimate sustainer vs libertarian choice is ultimate cause).

I obviously don't agree with libertarian freedom, but I'm not going to call a contradiction what is not. Sadly, the libertarian freedom advocate is not very precise with terms and will most likely avoid being backed into the "precise definition" corner.

I tend to prefer this line of thinking. Libertarian freedom advocates a self-sufficiency from God so as to be an ultimate cause. God says through His word that all things are upheld by the word of His power. God says that by Christ all things hold together. God says that of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things. God says that He gives to all mankind life, and breath, and everything. Therefore, God says that no human being or aspect of creation is independent/self-sufficient from Him. Thusly, libertarian freedom is in error when it asserts self-sufficient, ultimate human causation.

 

[Reformedguy]

I'm going to have to get a bit technical. If you are saying that it is a contradiction then you will have to demonstrate that the two ultimate causes are dealing with the same field or matter and at the same time.

For example, it would not be a contradiction to say that God is the ultimate cause of creation, but later people libertarianly choose and are thusly ultimate causes in a different way at a different time. The timing here is different and thusly not a contradiction.

However, it is a contradiction to say that the Bible says that all things (post-creation) are sustained by Him and thusly not ultimate causes. Libertarian freedom advocates ultimate human causality within the confines of God's sustained universe. The timing here is the same, and both ultimate causes are advocated of the same thing (God is the will's ultimate sustainer vs libertarian choice is ultimate cause).

I obviously don't agree with libertarian freedom, but I'm not going to call a contradiction what is not. Sadly, the libertarian freedom advocate is not very precise with terms and will most likely avoid being backed into the "precise definition" corner.

I tend to prefer this line of thinking. Libertarian freedom advocates a self-sufficiency from God so as to be an ultimate cause. God says through His word that all things are upheld by the word of His power. God says that by Christ all things hold together. God says that of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things. God says that He gives to all mankind life, and breath, and everything. Therefore, God says that no human being or aspect of creation is independent/self-sufficient from Him. Thusly, libertarian freedom is in error when it asserts self-sufficient, ultimate human causation.

It's like saying God is the ultimate cause of their ultimate cause?

 

[CCShorts]

@Reformedguy

I'm going to have to get a bit technical. If you are saying that it is a contradiction then you will have to demonstrate that the two ultimate causes are dealing with the same field or matter and at the same time.

Ok…

Hebrews 1:3 “he upholds the universe by the word of his power.”
Colossians 1:17 “he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
Acts 17:28 “In him we live and move and have our being”

Misunderstood View: Some people may interpret these verses to mean that God is only upholding the overall structure or framework that supports us, rather than being involved in every minute detail of our existence. They may see it as God's role to maintain the order and stability of the universe, but not necessarily to be directly involved in the functioning of every atom or subatomic particle within us.

Corrected Understanding: However, a careful examination of these verses reveals that they encompass all aspects of creation, from the grand scale of the universe down to the smallest subatomic particles. God's involvement is not limited to upholding the general framework but extends to every intricate detail that constitutes our very existence.

Hebrews 1:3 states that God upholds the universe by the word of His power. This implies that God's power sustains and maintains the entire cosmos, ensuring its existence and functioning. It means that every aspect of the universe, including the tiniest particles, is held together and supported by God's power.

Colossians 1:17 further emphasizes the all-encompassing nature of God's involvement. It states that He is before all things, indicating His eternal existence and preeminence over everything. Furthermore, it says that in Him, all things hold together. This means that God's sustaining power is not limited to external support but extends to the internal cohesion and coherence of all things. It encompasses the intricate interplay of forces and interactions that cause the universe to function harmoniously.

Acts 17:28 adds another layer to this understanding by stating that in God, we live and move and have our being. This verse emphasizes the intimate relationship between God and His creation, highlighting that our very existence, every breath we take, and every movement we make are ultimately dependent on Him. It implies that God's sustaining power extends to the core of our being, encompassing every aspect of our lives.

Therefore, these verses collectively communicate the idea that God's involvement in creation goes far beyond simply upholding external structures or support systems. God's sustaining power encompasses the entirety of creation, from the largest cosmic entities to the smallest subatomic particles. It is a mistake to exclude any part of creation from the implication of these verses. God's involvement is meticulous and detailed, permeating every aspect of our existence and ultimately causing all things to move into their next state of existence.

Continued…

 

[CCShorts]

… @His clay @Reformedguy

To further justify that this understanding is not new here are a few commentaries that agree with it:

Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible:
Matthew Poole, in his commentary on Colossians 1:17, explains that God's sustaining power is necessary for the continued existence of all things. He states, "If He should cease to uphold them, they would immediately sink into their primitive nothingness." This commentary highlights the vital role of God's sustaining power in preventing creation from reverting to non-existence.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary:
The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, in its exposition of Hebrews 1:3, emphasizes that God's upholding power is crucial for the continued existence of the universe. It states, "The Son's sustaining power is as necessary to the being of the universe now as His creative power was at first." This commentary asserts that if God were to withdraw His sustaining power, the universe would cease to exist.

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible:
John Gill's exposition of Acts 17:28 underscores the dependence of all things on God's sustaining power. He explains, "All beings live, and move, and have their being, in him, by his power, influence, and providence; should he withdraw his being, they would cease to be." Gill's commentary highlights the continuous reliance of all creation on God's sustaining power and the consequence of its withdrawal leading to non-existence.

John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible:
John Wesley's commentary on Hebrews 1:3 further supports the understanding of God's continuous upholding of our existence. He states, "All things were created by Him, and all things subsist in Him, and by the same powerful word which first fixed their bounds, He still preserves and maintains them in being." Wesley's commentary emphasizes the ongoing preservation of all things by God's power, reinforcing the idea that our existence is sustained at every moment.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
In his commentary on Hebrews 1:3, Albert Barnes reinforces the concept of continuous sustenance. He explains that God's upholding the universe "implies that it is continued in its existence by His power; that if that were withdrawn, it would vanish away." This commentary highlights the vital role of God's sustaining power, implying that any interruption or withdrawal of that power would result in the cessation of existence.

The Pulpit Commentary:
The Pulpit Commentary, in its exposition of Acts 17:28, emphasizes the ongoing nature of God's sustaining power. It states, "Not only do we 'live and move,' but our very being is in Him and of Him. It is a continued dependence. His upholding power is as needful now as at the first moment of our being." This commentary underscores that God's sustaining power is not a one-time event but is ongoing, necessary for our existence and functioning at every moment.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible:
Matthew Henry, a renowned biblical commentator, affirms the comprehensive nature of God's sustaining power in his commentary on Colossians 1:17. He states, "He upholds all things in being, and in their being what they are. Not only does He support and preserve them from falling into nothingness, but He maintains them in the order, usefulness, and beauty in which they were first made." This commentary emphasizes that God's sustaining power extends to every aspect of creation, including the subatomic level, ensuring that each meticulous part continues to exist and fulfill its purpose.

 

[ChristB4us]

I've read a few back and forth exchanges in a different forum over the topic of responsibility and causation. I hope to write a small piece addressing various issues informing that discussion.

The Prior Discussion
One poster advocates that God is the ultimate cause of all things, but people are the efficient cause of their sin.
The other poster advocates that each human being is the ultimate cause of his sin, and he accuses the other poster of making God responsible for man's sin.

What does the scripture say about this subject?

James 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. 16 Do not err, my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. 18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

So is the good gift from Heaven is the temptation or is the good gift from Heaven is helping us through our trails and temptations?

When you consider how the elders cast their crowns at His feet in Heaven, you may see that was done because the crowns are really His crowning achievements in them for why they will give Him praises for running that race in finishing His work in them to His glory.

1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; 2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. 3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: 4 Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: 5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. 6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. 7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: 13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. 14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. 16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. 17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.

 

[His clay]

What does the scripture say about this subject?

James 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. 16 Do not err, my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. 18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

So is the good gift from Heaven is the temptation or is the good gift from Heaven is helping us through our trails and temptations?

When you consider how the elders cast their crowns at His feet in Heaven, you may see that was done because the crowns are really His crowning achievements in them for why they will give Him praises for running that race in finishing His work in them to His glory.

1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; 2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. 3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: 4 Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: 5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. 6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. 7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: 13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. 14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. 16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. 17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.

How does this post relate to the opening post?

 

[Eleanor]

I've read a few back and forth exchanges in a different forum over the topic of responsibility and causation. I hope to write a small piece addressing various issues informing that discussion.

The Prior Discussion
One poster advocates that God is the ultimate cause of all things, but people are the efficient cause of their sin.
The other poster advocates that each human being is the ultimate cause of his sin, and he accuses the other poster of making God responsible for man's sin.
This is a basic summary of their exchange.

Competing Views of Responsibility and Human Freedom
In that prior discussion, both posters employ different frameworks for understanding the nature of human freedom and responsibility. This difference leads both in radically different directions. The second poster holds to a modified or weaker form of libertarian freedom, and the first poster probably holds to a form of compatibilistic freedom.

Two key features inform libertarian freedom. Ultimate human causality with respect to the will, or at least an ultimate first move of the will in determining future states of the will, this ultimacy defines the first aspect of the poster's view of libertarian freedom. The second key feature is the ability to do otherwise; at minimum this is true with respect to that initial first choice. Apparently, this is not true for future choices that have been determined by the first.

A few basic features inform a compatiblistic view of the will and choice-making. Human choices are made on account of causal reasons. Hence, as Jonathan Edwards pointed out, "to choose is to prefer." A choice is a selection in keeping with one's highest preference. Often times this is described in other terms of a person choosing what he wants. When a person does what he most wants or preferrs, then he is responsible for the choice. Because choices are inherently caused, the type of causation is extremely important. Some types of causation do remove responsibility while other types of causation do not remove responsibility.

Libertarian freedom, because of its view of human ultimacy, sees any form of ultimate divine causation as removing human accountability.
Compatibilistic freedom, because of its view of human nature, sees a clear difference between transcendent causation and imminent, internal causation. Thusly, human accountability is maintain even though the person could not have done otherwise.

Causal Conflation Fallacy
Because libertarian freedom holds to human ultimacy with respect to at least the initial movement of the will, the advocate will reject any and all forms of causation that might make the will unable to choose otherwise. Unfortunately, this leads the advocate to ignore the important distinctions of the compatibilist. The distinctions between ultimate, proximate, primary, secondary, efficient, internal, external, imminent, and transcendent are all ignored. This leads to the causal conflation fallacy and two people talking past each other. The libertarian advocate deceptively conflates all forms of causation into only "cause." Even if a person, on compatibilist terms, does something that they want to do, and the person is the immediate cause of their sin, the libertarian ignores all of these extremely important distinctions (establishing responsibility upon non-libertarian grounds) and focuses upon God's ultimate causality. This "turning a blind eye" to radically important distinctions of causality is what I am calling the "causal conflation fallacy."

The fact is that the Bible advocates a rather complex, multifaceted system of cause and effect. Take the crucifixion as an example. One of my teachers asked the class, "who caused Jesus' death." Note the word "cause" here. Also note the ambiguity. (1) We can note the language of Is 53 as the Father crushes the Son. (2) We can note that Jesus says that no one takes his life, but he lays it down. (3) We can note the multiple human groups involved in the false condemnation of Jesus. (4) We can note the Roman soldiers as they whipped and nailed Jesus to the tree. (5) We can note our own role in contributing our sin, as our sin was laid upon the spotless lamb of God. In each of these examples a different type of causation is biblically warranted. In the realm of providence, God's sustaining hand is often differentiated from His imminent causation. You also have different persons of the Trinity contributing to different causal roles in the application of salvation. In short, the Bible advocates a rather complex, multifaceted system of cause and effect. The causal conflation fallacy ignores the various types with only the sole focus of maintaining human ultimacy with respect to at least the first move of the will. Do compabilists claim to know all things with respect to responsibility? No, but much of what they say goes ignored by the causal conflation fallacy.

Conclusion
A few concluding thoughts encapsulate this post so far. Ideas have consequences; they lead people to different conclusions (note the causal reality of beliefs upon conclusions, and the conclusions lead to decisions to post). The libertarian view of the will leads its advocate to lie and grossly distort the compatibilistic view. The lying takes place when the accusation is made that the other person is making God responsible for sin. A difference in understanding responsibility, choice-making, and causation ought to be acknowledged. This difference ought to lead to a nuanced understanding of important causal distinctions, but sometimes these distinctions are glossed over leading people to make false accusations. I hope that this post proves helpful to aid people to wade through some difficult discussions. Does this post address every issue? Not by a long shot, but it serves as an elementary springboard.

 

[Eleanor]

I've read a few back and forth exchanges in a different forum over the topic of responsibility and causation. I hope to write a small piece addressing various issues informing that discussion.

The Prior Discussion
One poster advocates that God is the ultimate cause of all things, but people are the efficient cause of their sin.
The other poster advocates that each human being is the ultimate cause of his sin, and he accuses the other poster of making God responsible for man's sin.
This is a basic summary of their exchange.

Well, since we are talking about God, Scripture is the arbiter on this.
And it has a whole other approach.

In the NT, Adam's sin is imputed to all those born of Adam (Ro 5:12-19), as Christ's righteousness (justification) is imputed to all those born of Christ (Ro 4:1-11),
So right out of the shoot, all mankind is born guilty of sin and condemned (Ro 5:18), by nature (with which we are born) objects of wrath (Eph 2:3)
The issue is not responsibility for guilt, the issue is the remedy for the guilt in which all are born.

The only remedy for that guilt is faith in and trust on the atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) and person of Jesus Christ for the remission of that guilt and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," which remission of sin means salvation from God's wrath (Ro 5:9).

It's no more complicated than that.
The rest is window dressing.

 

[His clay]

Well, since we are talking about God, Scripture is the arbiter on this.
And it has a whole other approach.

In the NT, Adam's sin is imputed to all those born of Adam (Ro 5:12-19), as Christ's righteousness (justification) is imputed to all those born of Christ (Ro 4:1-11),
So right out of the shoot, all mankind is born guilty of sin and condemned (Ro 5:18), by nature (with which we are born) objects of wrath (Eph 2:3)
The issue is not responsibility for guilt, the issue is the remedy for the guilt in which all are born.

The only remedy for that guilt is faith in and trust on the atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) and person of Jesus Christ for the remission of that guilt and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," which remission of sin means salvation from God's wrath (Ro 5:9).

It's no more complicated than that.
The rest is window dressing.

For now, it is enough to say that I can agree with your approach. "Scripture is the arbiter on this."

 

[ChristB4us]

How does this post relate to the opening post?

In response to the opening precedent here;

I've read a few back and forth exchanges in a different forum over the topic of responsibility and causation. I hope to write a small piece addressing various issues informing that discussion.

The Prior Discussion
One poster advocates that God is the ultimate cause of all things, but people are the efficient cause of their sin.
The other poster advocates that each human being is the ultimate cause of his sin, and he accuses the other poster of making God responsible for man's sin.

And so I referred to scripture in what scripture says about that.

I believe the confusion is that in spite of our suffering trials and tribulation and temptation, the gift from God's sovereignty is His help through them is He works in us in finishing His work to His glory as the crowns we receive are His crowning achievements in us in finishing that race for us.

When we fail to put away provisions for the flesh that He had nudged us to put away or turn away from but we ignored because of desires, then that is on us until we realize we are caught in fiery trials again for which we need Him to help us through it by stopping to engage in the provision for the flesh, putting it away, even if it is in thoughts in casting them down to think on good things, but we look to Christ Jesus for help on that.

 

[makesends]

I'm going to have to get a bit technical. If you are saying that it is a contradiction then you will have to demonstrate that the two ultimate causes are dealing with the same field or matter and at the same time.

How can either one of them be an ultimate cause (I use the term, First Cause) if there are fields or matter over which they are not the cause? That is self-contradictory. That's like saying that god "x" is the God of this universe, but there may be another universe with god "y" over it. HOW, I ask can either god x or god y be First Cause at all? Does not "Ultimate Cause", after all, mean "First Cause"? If there is more than one, then neither is God.

For example, it would not be a contradiction to say that God is the ultimate cause of creation, but later people libertarianly choose and are thusly ultimate causes in a different way at a different time. The timing here is different and thusly not a contradiction.

But it directly contradicts good reasoning: If God is First Cause, then everything else descends causally from him. If not, he is not first cause. If not first cause, he is not God. HOW do people 'later' libertarianly choose? Why even bother with the logic-sloughing, term: "Later"? What difference is it to God whether it is right away or "later"? What difference is it logically?

However, it is a contradiction to say that the Bible says that all things (post-creation) are sustained by Him and thusly not ultimate causes. Libertarian freedom advocates ultimate human causality within the confines of God's sustained universe. The timing here is the same, and both ultimate causes are advocated of the same thing (God is the will's ultimate sustainer vs libertarian choice is ultimate cause).

That whole Deistic-sounding notion is self-contradictory. Did God cause people to be able to do uncaused things?

I obviously don't agree with libertarian freedom, but I'm not going to call a contradiction what is not. Sadly, the libertarian freedom advocate is not very precise with terms and will most likely avoid being backed into the "precise definition" corner.

I was just thinking about that today. When we get accused of parsing and drawing fine lines, etc. I wonder how wide a gulf God sees between the one thing and the other. I try to get specific about just what do people mean by freewill for that reason. The vague definitions I get sound almost like what I believe, but the person giving the definition thinks it very definitely and precisely means the opposite of what I believe.

I tend to prefer this line of thinking. Libertarian freedom advocates a self-sufficiency from God so as to be an ultimate cause. God says through His word that all things are upheld by the word of His power. God says that by Christ all things hold together. God says that of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things. God says that He gives to all mankind life, and breath, and everything. Therefore, God says that no human being or aspect of creation is independent/self-sufficient from Him. Thusly, libertarian freedom is in error when it asserts self-sufficient, ultimate human causation.

Yes, indeed! I call it, "self-determinism", because it is defended like a religion. It is a very man-centered mindset, and fits the "old nature" of the believer with no resistance at all. It even comes disguised as "the path to godliness" (to avoid calling it god-likeness), and "maturity", and "moral dependability".

 

[His clay]

How can either one of them be an ultimate cause (I use the term, First Cause) if there are fields or matter over which they are not the cause? That is self-contradictory. That's like saying that god "x" is the God of this universe, but there may be another universe with god "y" over it. HOW, I ask can either god x or god y be First Cause at all? Does not "Ultimate Cause", after all, mean "First Cause"? If there is more than one, then neither is God.

But it directly contradicts good reasoning: If God is First Cause, then everything else descends causally from him. If not, he is not first cause. If not first cause, he is not God. HOW do people 'later' libertarianly choose? Why even bother with the logic-sloughing, term: "Later"? What difference is it to God whether it is right away or "later"? What difference is it logically?

That whole Deistic-sounding notion is self-contradictory. Did God cause people to be able to do uncaused things?

I was just thinking about that today. When we get accused of parsing and drawing fine lines, etc. I wonder how wide a gulf God sees between the one thing and the other. I try to get specific about just what do people mean by freewill for that reason. The vague definitions I get sound almost like what I believe, but the person giving the definition thinks it very definitely and precisely means the opposite of what I believe.

Yes, indeed! I call it, "self-determinism", because it is defended like a religion. It is a very man-centered mindset, and fits the "old nature" of the believer with no resistance at all. It even comes disguised as "the path to godliness" (to avoid calling it god-likeness), and "maturity", and "moral dependability".

I completely get where you are coming from. I'm not even going to try and defend libertarian freedom, since I don't hold to it; and I find it contradictory in many ways. My main caution to Reformedguy was that he needed to make sure it really was a contradiction (assuming that is what was meant by "illogical").

Regarding "self-determinism" language, this use of language (i.e. the term) is subject to equivocation when dealing with the difference between compatibilist freedom and libertarian freedom. I sometimes ask the libertarian advocate, "What of the self is determining the will?" I get the response that the agent does. But this just simply rewords the question itself, "What of the agent determines the will?" I've not really heard a decent answer to this question. In compatibilism, the answer is rather simple, the highest preference is what determines the will.

Again, regarding the "self-determinism" language, if the self determines the will, and there is only one self at the moment of choice, then how could it be otherwise? I have not received a good answer for this problem (the problem of the law of identity) from the libertarian advocate. One person said that nothing determines the will, but this then directly contradicts the earlier statement of the self determining the will. Is the "self" a "nothing"? Then the person corrected himself and said that the "self" determines the will, but then this lands one back into the problem of the law of identity. Since the person/agent/self cannot be otherwise at the moment of choice, and if the person/agent/self determines the will, then how can one choose otherwise?

It is at this point that I really think that back of libertarian freedom is the conflation of various objects of choice (often termed "options") with the supposed ability to choose equally between them. But this omits the whole decision-making process and denies the causal relationship between what one loves (i.e. most prefers at the moment of choice) and what one chooses. Hence, libertarian freedom has had many names in the past, and "liberty of indifference" is the most suitable at the moment. I simply disagree biblically, logically, and experientially with such a notion. People simply aren't indifferent when making choices.

Anyway, I am rambling. I'll stop after pointing out that above are a few of the logical problems of libertarian freedom.

 

[His clay]

Well, since we are talking about God, Scripture is the arbiter on this.
And it has a whole other approach.

In the NT, Adam's sin is imputed to all those born of Adam (Ro 5:12-19), as Christ's righteousness (justification) is imputed to all those born of Christ (Ro 4:1-11),
So right out of the shoot, all mankind is born guilty of sin and condemned (Ro 5:18), by nature (with which we are born) objects of wrath (Eph 2:3)
The issue is not responsibility for guilt, the issue is the remedy for the guilt in which all are born.

The only remedy for that guilt is faith in and trust on the atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) and person of Jesus Christ for the remission of that guilt and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," which remission of sin means salvation from God's wrath (Ro 5:9).

It's no more complicated than that.
The rest is window dressing.

As I said previously, I agree that "Scripture is the arbiter on this."

However, I must disagree that it's no more complicated than your post allows. For example, in the Scripture we learn two more things about responsibility your post here did not cover. (1) In Romans 1, the knowledge the truth suppressors inevitably possessed was a standard for their responsibility (note the judgement language at the end of R1 and the statement "so they are without excuse"). (2) We can visit the terrible account of Amnon and Tamar in 2 Samuel 13. It is a truly revolting and tragic event. Clearly, the context points out that Tamar was opposed to Amnon's pursuit. But the passage points out a situation of "forcing" (v14) where I think that all here would definitely not consider Tamar accountable or responsible for Amnon's terrible actions. She clearly did not want to do what Amnon wanted.

Again, my point above is that Scripture fills out the issue a bit more. I think that your post is a good start in dealing with how Scripture addresses the matter. The other passages of Scripture, addressing the issue of responsibility, are not "window dressing." And certainly, the Scriptures I just referenced are not the full picture either.

At any rate, thank you for sharing your thoughts in the post quoted above.

 

[Reformedguy]

I completely get where you are coming from. I'm not even going to try and defend libertarian freedom, since I don't hold to it; and I find it contradictory in many ways. My main caution to Reformedguy was that he needed to make sure it really was a contradiction (assuming that is what was meant by "illogical").

Regarding "self-determinism" language, this use of language (i.e. the term) is subject to equivocation when dealing with the difference between compatibilist freedom and libertarian freedom. I sometimes ask the libertarian advocate, "What of the self is determining the will?" I get the response that the agent does. But this just simply rewords the question itself, "What of the agent determines the will?" I've not really heard a decent answer to this question. In compatibilism, the answer is rather simple, the highest preference is what determines the will.

Again, regarding the "self-determinism" language, if the self determines the will, and there is only one self at the moment of choice, then how could it be otherwise? I have not received a good answer for this problem (the problem of the law of identity) from the libertarian advocate. One person said that nothing determines the will, but this then directly contradicts the earlier statement of the self determining the will. Is the "self" a "nothing"? Then the person corrected himself and said that the "self" determines the will, but then this lands one back into the problem of the law of identity. Since the person/agent/self cannot be otherwise at the moment of choice, and if the person/agent/self determines the will, then how can one choose otherwise?

It is at this point that I really think that back of libertarian freedom is the conflation of various objects of choice (often termed "options") with the supposed ability to choose equally between them. But this omits the whole decision-making process and denies the causal relationship between what one loves (i.e. most prefers at the moment of choice) and what one chooses. Hence, libertarian freedom has had many names in the past, and "liberty of indifference" is the most suitable at the moment. I simply disagree biblically, logically, and experientially with such a notion. People simply aren't indifferent when making choices.

Anyway, I am rambling. I'll stop after pointing out that above are a few of the logical problems of libertarian freedom.

I see what your saying. Your right. My point was simply it is not possible to have two ultimate causes all things in the universe.