In the previous thread along these lines Skandelon argued that man's will is independent so much that nothing causes it to choose what it chooses outside of the chooser. In other words, there is no cause for why the chooser chooses what he chooses. Skandelon attributes to choice, or the chooser, the characteristic that God alone can have- being an uncaused cause. That's what contra-causal is. It means nothing caused it. con·tra In contrast or opposition to; against. adv. In opposition to something stated or expected; to the contrary. That attribute can belong to God alone. Only God is uncaused. Only his actions can be made based on himself. When Skandelon says that a choice is based on the chooser he is attributing to the chooser God's incommunicable attribute of independency. A choice cannot say of itself "I am that I am" and therefore it is dependent. The chooser cannot say of himself "I am that I am." Therefore his choosing is contingent, dependent and fully relying upon God for his existence and for the existence of all that he does. Skandelon tries to wiggle out from under this by saying that choices do have influences but that the influences are not sufficient guarantors of what the choice will be. What then IS the sufficient guarantor and what does it look to in order to guarantee the choice? He cannot answer. But the answer is obvious to anyone who is remotely objective. Scripture says that in God we live and move and have our being. The Word of God says that Christ was before all things and by HIM all things CONSIST. The only thing in the universe that is uncaused is GOD. Not man's puny choices and not the puny choosers of those choices. Being UNCAUSED is the PREMIER attribute of God. It is THE ESSENCE of his very name, Jehovah. To snatch that attribute down from its highest and holiest perch in the nature of God and to attribute it to a man choosing is really a VERY DANGEROUS THING.