Concerning Determinism: Is it actually possible that more than what happens can happen?

[makesends]

Remind me and inform those who don't know: Would you describe yourself as an adherent to Open Theism? Molinism?

FYI, because of some recent threads in which these viewpoints have appeared I pulled out my "Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views" and refreshed my knowledge of the various positions and their arguments. You might consider picking up a copy and give it a read. So far, I've read about a half-dozen from the series and they're very informative.

Not even close. Wondering why you ask. Both are intellectually and Biblically vapid. I've read The Openness of God, and could hardly stomach it. Molinism isn't much better if any.

 

[makesends]

....or do not act according to it at all, or act in complete opposite or in antithesis of what would otherwise be the normal or ordinary "line" determinism. You keep leaving out those options.

Yes, I left out those options because they are obvious. They do not change the point in the least.

Do humans have volitional agency or not?

I guess this is a good way to cut to the chase, and not keep having to repeat the longer posts. You apparently (to my mind) believe volitional agency necessarily means the ability to act outside of being caused to choose whatever that agent chooses. I disagree.

I will grant that God being first cause, and as such, the "inventor" of time, reason, even very reality, and certainly of cause-and-effect. That being so, I will not say that God cannot act outside of cause-and-effect as he can outside of time. I have been called 'incoherent' for claiming that chronology is not necessary for cause-and-effect to have [causal] sequence. But my limited mind does consider departure from cause-and-effect incoherent. Again, I am not going to say that God cannot do whatever he wants, and certainly God is master of cause-and-effect, and not the other way around. I will also admit quite happily that I need not understand how it all works together to believe it. —BUT, I see no need to go there. The facts of life and scripture do not logically require it, as far as I can see. And logic does not admit to it, except, as I mentioned, that the God who "invented" logic is not governed by anything but himself.

Logic, as far as I can tell, answers all the questions brought up by the Arminian. To me, God is either sovereign, or he is not. He does not submit himself to causality apart from what he caused. (For example, yes, he responds to prayer, but he is the one who works in us both to will and to do according to his good pleasure, in prayer.

So. Why should 'volitional agency' imply 'uncaused'?

 

[makesends]

The two questions together create a conflict in logic. An influence is not an influence if it can be disregarded in its entirety. God cannot be disregarded. Sin in the unregenerate's life cannot be disregarded. Any antithetical choice or act is still the opposite of the thesis, without which nothing else is possible. However, most influences are temporal, not divine. Someone yelling at me, or calling me names (for examples) CAN have an influence on me and it can drive me toward a reaction with determinism, or a more mitigated response with influence (especially if learning and experience has influenced me to have a pool of responses from which I can select. We might also say more than one determined reaction is possible given learning or lack thereof. I might yell back because I know no better alternative. I might remain silent for the exact same reason. More importantly, despite the intent of the influence (such is the motive of the yeller or name-caller), I need to not respond in any manner having anything to do with their motive, intent, purpose, or objectives. Now things like time and circumstance don't typically come minds of their own so influences of provocation are irrelevant, but the illustration shows the agency of the one being yelled at. A victim of name calling has as many choices as his knowledge and experience iform..... plus one. And I think it is the "plus one" you're leaving out.

And what is that "plus one"? Because nothing else you say there demands that God not determine absolutely everything, to include a moral agent's choices.

More specifically, though. My use of percentages was intended to show the problem in your own position. You've argued some, but not all influences can be shed. Well, does that not beg the question, "How much 'some'?" 10% some? 40% some? 70% some? 99.9999999% some? How much determinism are you willing to surrender with the premise, "humans may disregard this or that in order to choose what they please, but they cannot shed all influences"?

No. None of what God has determined can be undone. If they can't shed all influences, then they are caused to do. The flick of anger at themselves for being unable to shed an influence may even be the influence by which God causes their choice. There is no escaping his causation.

Humans may disregard 10% of this or that....
Humans may disregard 70% of this or that...
Humans may disregard 99.99% of this or that...

Those are huge differences in how much can be disregarded. Adam had to regard only one influence . Humans can disregard some influences. Okay. If that is true then they are not always determined. Not all influences are deterministic. There exist not-deterministic influences.

Of course there are influences that don't determine my choice. That isn't my point, any more than it is to my point that effects are also causes. Both are true, and are irrelevant to God determining our choices.

 

[makesends]

I am surprised you would make this statement and identify as Reformed. Perhaps it is just a hasty error in wordage? Calvinism teaches no such thing, and it is certainly not the heart of Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that unregenerate humanity cannot choose Christ, and that because of his internal inclinations to sin. And not just inclinations but actual bondage. He doesn't want to and cannot even see or understand the gospel. It is foolishness to him. It does not teach that he can never choose anything that is right.

I mean you no disrespect here, but how does that differ from what I said?

 

[makesends]

If God added other first causes would they all necessarily be caused by the first cause? Could He not cause three separate simultaneously-occurring first causes? Having cause one or more first causes could God then, at some point "later" in the passage of time within the creation add another completely uncaused cause?

Wow! You are arguing like that guy!

OK. God does not cause first cause. He causes first effect —i.e. second cause. God is himself first cause. Now, he can definitely cause as many second causes as he pleases, each with their different resultant chains of causation, to overlap and entangle each other or to stay separate, as he pleases. But I don't see how that is relevant to the question of God determining absolutely all things.

 

[makesends]

First, intent is not cause. Do not conflate the two.

Second, please do so. Please show God intended every detail and deterministically acted to make that detail occur.

Hahaha! Each detail (were I to know each one to be able to explain it) would be added to by another detail (and more) each time I explained! I'd never get done!

Intent does carry a different meaning from cause. Certainly a different use. But what God intends, he causes, whether directly or through means. Always.

 

[fastfredy0]

Concerning Determinism​

Premise 1: God knows all things
Premise 2: God is immutable and therefore has always known 'all things' (He cannot learn as there is nothing to learn.
Premise 3: Before time existed, there was only God
Conclusion: God determines/causes "all things". God's only source of knowledge is Himself.

God is like the author of a book. Everything that happens in the book is determined by the author. At times God inserts himself into the story.

Johnathan Edwards argued that since the principle of causality demands that all actions are caused, then it is irrational to claim that things arise without a cause. For Edwards a self-caused action is impossible, since a cause is prior to an effect, and one cannot be prior to himself. Therefore, all actions are ultimately caused by a First Cause (God). "Free choice" is doing what one desires, but God gives the desires or affections that control action. Hence, all human actions ultimately are determined by God.

From “Institutes of Christian Religion”
God bends all the reprobate, and even Satan himself, at his will. From this statement an objection is started; that this happens by the permission, not by the will of God. To this objection there is a twofold reply, that angels and men, good and bad, do nothing but what is appointed by God;
that all movements are secretly directed to their end by the hidden inspiration of God.

 

[makesends]

I am surprised you would make this statement and identify as Reformed. Perhaps it is just a hasty error in wordage? Calvinism teaches no such thing, and it is certainly not the heart of Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that unregenerate humanity cannot choose Christ, and that because of his internal inclinations to sin. And not just inclinations but actual bondage. He doesn't want to and cannot even see or understand the gospel. It is foolishness to him. It does not teach that he can never choose anything that is right.

Just as @Josheb has done, and I agree it makes sense to do so, I now identify as a monergist (on my profile). I only call myself Reformed or Calvinist because they more closely resemble what I believe than any other flavor of Christian that I have encountered.

But that doesn't change what I said, that I see no real difference between what you claim here that Calvinism teaches, and what I claim Calvinism teaches.

 

[makesends]

You might need to clarify that because it is incorrect as written. Just because God is the sole first cause does not mean His first cause is the only cause, influence, or determinism.

Apples vs Oranges, or something, is going on here, I think. Like I have said, I don't think God is the only cause. Just, we know that He is the first cause of every series, every chain of causation. And, again, as far as I know, all effects are causes, or soon will be

Is that a red herring? has someone here asserted determinism renders God's words meaningless? I certainly have not.

It was a shortcut to what I see implied by your statement, "This is always a potentiality in scripture. God tells Cain not to do what he is about to do. We know he is compelled to murder, and God's exhortation is intended to highlight that very problem (his bondage to sin) but God's words would be meaningless were it not possible for Cain to also act in complete opposition to everything externally and everything internally bearing on him to commit murder." What you describe in opposition to determinism —"possible for Cain to also act in complete opposition to everything everything [influencing him]"— as validating meaning to God's words, works out to (in the negative) determinism renders God's words meaningless. And I am disagreeing with that.

I believe I have already answered that question. Not sure why it's being used as an example if it's already been rendered immaterial.

I must've missed the answer.

I can and often do think like an Arminian. or a Pelagian, a Wesleyan, a Determinist, an Open Theist, a Dispensationalist, etc. The ability to do so is one of the benefits of reading diversely outside one's own paradigm, not just diversely within it. Remember: most of us Cals used to be Arms and Arm apologists, so we are quite familiar with how the synergists reasonings.

Do you often reason to modify your Calvinist Doctrine with these ways of thinking?

No.

However, as someone who believes God exists outside of time (external to that which he created) I have a different view of causality (and therefore His knowledge of cause-and-effect) than many.

Probably not but our discussions often serve the purpose of sorting out things that haven't been reasoned to their logically necessary outcomes.

Ooooo.... Calvinism does not teach the unregenerate are unable to do any and all right. The inability it solely soteriological. Or that which is morally right or good is not wholly morally right or good because it was performed by sinful flesh and that taints even the good that is possible. That's a better understanding of Calvinist theology.

When an unregenerate mother lives her life for her child, she is still not doing right, no matter how right it is. When an altruistic act is done by the unregenerate, it is never quite altruistic. When the unregenerate chooses Christ, he has not chosen Christ, but his own notions. Yes, we can say he made the right choice, but that only means the better of the two he thinks to be choosing between. —But, maybe that isn't Calvinism...

 

[ReverendRV]

Apples vs Oranges, or something, is going on here, I think. Like I have said, I don't think God is the only cause. Just, we know that He is the first cause of every series, every chain of causation. And, again, as far as I know, all effects are causes, or soon will be

God is the only First Cause of every Secondary Causation. We as Individuals can only be Secondary Causations...

God is never a Secondary Causation; except perhaps in the Individual known as Jesus Christ...

 

[makesends]

That is incorrect.

And, based on what I have read and assuming I have understood the argument(s) correctly one of the flaws appears to be God's first cause if singular. Another might be the assumption God's first cause encompassed no other sources of causality. I don't see much, if anything, that evidences those possibilities have been considered.

makesends said:
You may be right about the authors of the WCF. I wouldn't know. I do know that their words need not entail the possibility of more than one outcome.

Then I will respectfully suggest you are unqualified to criticize that which you do not adequately know and understand and will likely end up arguing straw men.

Was I criticizing, or even critiquing the WCF and/or its authors? I feel like I'm missing something that has you coming at me for this.

What do you mean by "long way"? If you're not open to any position but that which you already hold then why are you here posting as if a discussion is actually happening?

I'm open to the truth, but so far, I have heard nothing from you to even begin to convince me that God doesn't determine absolutely all things. The most anything so far has done so is my simple surprise that you, my brother, and intelligent at that, think that God can somehow cause more than one outcome to be actually possible.

Again, to me the fact that we have choice is obvious. The notion that choice is made between actual possibilities, is not. In fact, it seems to me historically, empirically, obvious that our choice is made between what we take to be possibilities, when in fact, only what actually ever happens can happen, as demonstrated by the fact that the other option(s) never happened.

I understand. You've gone on record stating humans can be causal. Good. Now think it through.

Done. I've thought it through. Now what?

No, that is incorrect. Make "contingency" plural and take out the word "only" and you'll have better footing.

makesends said:
A note on the word, "contingency", there. It does not imply that it could have gone this way or that way, but simply that if x didn't happen, y wouldn't (or would, as the case may be) happen; or alternately, if x does happen, y will not (or will, as the case may be) happen. The fact we don't know, and consider each 'option' equally possible is no indicator that all 'options' are actually possible.

Try to bear in mind that a human dictionary does not establish fact, but OUR meaning -- our use of thought.

ROTFLMBO!

Do you see the irony of that bold-faced highlighted statement? With a single sentence you've undermined your entire argument and proven my point!

No. My point, which I thought was pretty well made, is that "contingency" is not only what WE think it means, since what we think is necessarily stunted, twisted, or added to by our presuppositions. "Contingency" need not imply possibility to the negative, but only dependence of one fact upon another. Thus: If the scripture arranges one fact contingent upon another, it only implies that for the one fact to be true, or to become true, as the case may be, the other fact must be true. It does not posit that the negative also be true. If one is to be saved, he must be born again. There is no indication that it was ever actually possible for the elect to not become saved, but only that for the elect is to be saved, he must be born again. Likewise with Christ's sinlessness: It is not possible for God to sin, thus, since he is God, he did not sin. To be God, he could not sin. WE suppose the possibility, and he had to reject temptation as we must, because if he hadn't, he wouldn't have been God. This goes on and on and on. "We do so because it is so." —Not because it is possible to do otherwise.

 

[Arial]

I mean you no disrespect here, but how does that differ from what I said?

It is at the heart of Calvinism, specifically, that the unregenerate are UNABLE to choose right,

It does not teach that he can never choose anything that is right.

See the difference?

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
It is at the heart of Calvinism, specifically, that the unregenerate are UNABLE to choose right,
Arial said:
It does not teach that he can never choose anything that is right.

See the difference?

Does Romans 8 not say that he cannot please God? Does choosing what is right please God?

Yes, he can make a better choice than the worse choice, but it is corrupt throughout.

This is what confuses people. They think Calvinists are saying that everyone is as bad as can be. But an unsaved mother can genuinely love her child, and she can choose to do what is best for her child. Does that make her choice right? It is still full of corruption.

Even when one "receives Christ as Savior", without being regenerated, they are not actually receiving Christ as Savior, (because salvation is through faith, which the unregenerate do not have). It is an operation of their 'mind of flesh'. It is a good thing —the 'right choice'— but wrong. Even the so-called altruistic act, done by an unbeliever, is corrupt, and therefore wrong. "All have turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one."

And, I think, that is Calvinism. I will be very much disappointed in Calvinism if I am wrong.

 

[Arial]

Does Romans 8 not say that he cannot please God? Does choosing what is right please God?

Yes, he can make a better choice than the worse choice, but it is corrupt throughout.

OK Makesends. You are trying to talk two things at the same time here without make a distinction between the two. You mean one thing and state it as another. The question as to your statement that Calvinism teaches that the unregenerate man can not do anything right, is the very misstatement that many make when they bring accusations against Calvinism. That is what is being pointed out.

To then say that you mean even the righteous acts of the unregenerate is as filthy rags is to begin an entirely different conversation. That should have been stated along with your comment.

 

[makesends]

OK Makesends. You are trying to talk two things at the same time here without make a distinction between the two. You mean one thing and state it as another. The question as to your statement that Calvinism teaches that the unregenerate man can not do anything right, is the very misstatement that many make when they bring accusations against Calvinism. That is what is being pointed out.

To then say that you mean even the righteous acts of the unregenerate is as filthy rags is to begin an entirely different conversation. That should have been stated along with your comment.

Your assessment may be valid, but I can't see it. To me, Calvinism is plain that the deeds of unregenerated men are not good. Period. What they look like to people is rather beside the point. I offer the acknowledgement that one choice is indeed better than another, but there is none who does good; no, not one. Maybe I'm wrong about Calvinism, though. You would know better than I.

 

[Arial]

makesends said:
You may be right about the authors of the WCF. I wouldn't know. I do know that their words need not entail the possibility of more than one outcome.

Was I criticizing, or even critiquing the WCF and/or its authors? I feel like I'm missing something that has you coming at me for this.

I'm open to the truth, but so far, I have heard nothing from you to even begin to convince me that God doesn't determine absolutely all things. The most anything so far has done so is my simple surprise that you, my brother, and intelligent at that, think that God can somehow cause more than one outcome to be actually possible.

Again, to me the fact that we have choice is obvious. The notion that choice is made between actual possibilities, is not. In fact, it seems to me historically, empirically, obvious that our choice is made between what we take to be possibilities, when in fact, only what actually ever happens can happen, as demonstrated by the fact that the other option(s) never happened.

Done. I've thought it through. Now what?

makesends said:
A note on the word, "contingency", there. It does not imply that it could have gone this way or that way, but simply that if x didn't happen, y wouldn't (or would, as the case may be) happen; or alternately, if x does happen, y will not (or will, as the case may be) happen. The fact we don't know, and consider each 'option' equally possible is no indicator that all 'options' are actually possible.

Try to bear in mind that a human dictionary does not establish fact, but OUR meaning -- our use of thought.

No. My point, which I thought was pretty well made, is that "contingency" is not only what WE think it means, since what we think is necessarily stunted, twisted, or added to by our presuppositions. "Contingency" need not imply possibility to the negative, but only dependence of one fact upon another. Thus: If the scripture arranges one fact contingent upon another, it only implies that for the one fact to be true, or to become true, as the case may be, the other fact must be true. It does not posit that the negative also be true. If one is to be saved, he must be born again. There is no indication that it was ever actually possible for the elect to not become saved, but only that for the elect is to be saved, he must be born again. Likewise with Christ's sinlessness: It is not possible for God to sin, thus, since he is God, he did not sin. To be God, he could not sin. WE suppose the possibility, and he had to reject temptation as we must, because if he hadn't, he wouldn't have been God. This goes on and on and on. "We do so because it is so." —Not because it is possible to do otherwise.

This is not relating to the conversation of doing good. It is just something I came across to day that might be of interest to you and possibly shed some light on the conversation. Different perspectives often serve as a light shining on truth from an angle we had not observed from. It is a long read and needs pondering so I suggest downloading it in a file or such.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org › themelios › article › christological-arguments-for-compatibilism-in-reformed-theology

 

[makesends]

This is not relating to the conversation of doing good. It is just something I came across to day that might be of interest to you and possibly shed some light on the conversation. Different perspectives often serve as a light shining on truth from an angle we had not observed from. It is a long read and needs pondering so I suggest downloading it in a file or such.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org › themelios › article › christological-arguments-for-compatibilism-in-reformed-theology

Thanks. I'll take a look.

 

[Josheb]

Apples vs Oranges, or something, is going on here, I think. Like I have said, I don't think God is the only cause. Just, we know that He is the first cause of every series, every chain of causation. And, again, as far as I know, all effects are causes, or soon will be

And, again, I'm not sure I've made the point sufficiently clear or perhaps that it has been sufficiently understood. We all agree God is "The First Cause," the Uncaused Cause of Creation. For the sake of this discussion, however, it should not be assumed Genesis 1:1 is the only time God caused and uncaused cause. Every time God enters creation to cause something new and different he is adding to the cause He has caused as the Uncaused Causer of uncaused causes. In other words, we spend a lot of time (too much time if it occurs in neglect of all occasions God causes things to happen) talking about Genesis 1:1 but neglect or ignore all of the many times God adds to creation.

Scripture tells us all things that were made, were made within six days (Gen. 1:31; Ex. 20:11). John and Paul tell us all that was made was made through Jesus and all the was created was created through Jesus (Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:16). As a side note, the language is a curious parallel to Ephesians 2:8 = Creation was made by God through Jesus and salvation is by grace through faith. Everything God made was made in six days and on the seventh He rested. On the seventh Jesus resurrected. God raised His Son from the grave such that on the first day of the week he was nowhere to be found in the tomb. It would appear God rested for a time and that which He had made ended up finding completion, fulfillment, perfection on the day He rested (a few millennia later) .

Isaiah 43:19
Behold, I am going to do something new, now it will spring up; will you not be aware of it? I will even make a roadway in the wilderness, rivers in the desert.

What? God did something new? I thought He was done .

2 Corinthians 5:14-15
For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. Therefore, from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Note: some translation say, "new creature," but the Greek is a noun used for the act and/or product of creating, and carries with it the connotation of establishing a new city or institution (where none previously existed) so it should not be thought to mean a "replacement" of one type or condition in the same creature. God makes something new when He saves. Since there are currently approximately 2 billion new creations in Christ, the Creator has entered His creation billions of times plus one and caused new, uncaused causes. What's the "plus one, Josh?" The path out of the wilderness! God made a new path and from that path has made billions of new creations, none of which existed in the first six days of creation.

Isaiah 42:9
Behold, the former things have come to pass, Now I declare new things; Before they spring forth I proclaim them to you.

Isaiah 48:6-7
You have heard; look at all this. And you, will you not declare it? I proclaim to you new things from this time, Even hidden things which you have not known. They are created now and not long ago; And before today you have not heard them, So that you will not say, 'Behold, I knew them.'

Apparently, some of the new things were created "not long ago," and some of them were created "now," and some of them will happen after they have been declared.

Isaiah 65:17
For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.

Did God make two "the heavens and the earth" in six days? No, Josh, that word "new" should be read to mean "different," or "changed." Yeah, okay, but I though He was done working? Everything has been done and God has rested. Not only was everything made in six days but everything God ordained was ordained in eternity, according to the WCF.

Did that eternal ordaining include all the times God subsequently entered creation to add new and different causes to creation? I ask because I think it's a huge mistake to limit Genesis 1 as the only uncaused cause the Uncaused Cause caused. It's a mistake to read WCF 3.1 to say there was only one divine cause when the article could easily be read to mean all the occasions when God would subsequently cause causes in creation were also all decided before a single atomic particle was spoken into existence.

If that's true then you, @makesends, are going to have to rethink this idea everything came from only one cause.

And if it is correct and true that Humans can also contribute uncaused causes simply out of the limited volitional agency and within the limiting capacities with which God endowed them, then there are potentially billions of billions of uncaused caused over which God remains omni-attributed and sovereign. The only difference is that had God not made the human there'd be no volitional agency by which the human might also add to creation's causes. God is The Uncaused Cause who caused creatures who can also cause uncaused causes. God is not the author of sin. One of those caused humans with causal agency was the cause; the cause of a new and different..... cause! Sin causes all kinds of problems .


As I said before, any god can make action figures that do only what they are made to do and say. Even I can make action figures to do what I want, and I am not a god. A God that can create an enormously caused causality is a much bigger God than the god of little green army men. Creation should be thought of as both the unfolding of plans, purposes and objectives first caused "in the beginning," and the introduction of new plans, purposes and objectives also known before the creation of creation but added to the first cause without being causally dependent on it.

 

[Josheb]

Not even close. Wondering why you ask.

Just making sure and adding your testimony for the benefit of others who might be curious but not asking. Nothing nefarious intended.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, I left out those options because they are obvious. They do not change the point in the least.

I disagree. They do make a difference.

I guess this is a good way to cut to the chase, and not keep having to repeat the longer posts. You apparently (to my mind) believe volitional agency necessarily means the ability to act outside of being caused to choose whatever that agent chooses. I disagree.

To be clear: for any sinful creature the cause is always sin. For any sinless creature his causal agency is caused by God, but God is not causing the causes of the sinless causal agent. Anyone denying the latter is going to run into the classic dilemma of how one can be held responsible, culpable, and accountable for things they were caused to do.

I will grant that God being first cause, and as such, the "inventor" of time, reason, even very reality, and certainly of cause-and-effect. That being so, I will not say that God cannot act outside of cause-and-effect as he can outside of time.

Yep. Good so far.

I have been called 'incoherent' for claiming that chronology is not necessary for cause-and-effect to have [causal] sequence.

Since time is the measure of case and effect the critics are correct. Time does not exist where there is not cause causing an effect. That sequence is what we call "time." It is not that time is "necessary," it is that time is an inherent and inextricable component of cause and effect. The moment God caused the uncaused cause that had effect He created time. Time is a created condition of creation.

But my limited mind does consider departure from cause-and-effect incoherent............

Do you have difficulty with the existence of God, the Uncaused Cause? If not then you do already have a place in your thinking for a departure from cause-and-effect.

Logic, as far as I can tell, answers all the questions brought up by the Arminian. To me, God is either sovereign, or he is not. He does not submit himself to causality apart from what he caused. (For example, yes, he responds to prayer, but he is the one who works in us both to will and to do according to his good pleasure, in prayer.

I agree. However, soteriologically speaking there is no causal agency for the sinner. He is already enslaved, and deterministically so. Sin is the cause, and all effects are likewise sinful. God is not the author of sin, and only the Pelagian is going to deny the determinism of both God and sin.

So. Why should 'volitional agency' imply 'uncaused'?

Red herring.

First, no causal agent would exist had The Uncaused Cause not caused causal agent's existence. Second, the cause of sin's entrance is not implied to be uncaused, nor is it implied to be caused by God. Scripture explicitly states the cause was a a divinely caused causal agent free of sin. Adam freely caused something new. God is not the author of sin and God did not cause/make/force Adam to cause sin, either.