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

[Josheb]

But I don't see how that is relevant to the question of God determining absolutely all things.

God did not cause sin's entrance into the world.

 

[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

Those are not points in dispute.

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.

Do you deny the possibility of Cain's not killing his brother?

I must've missed the answer.

Then go back and re-read the thread.

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

Red herring. On this subject, I always reason from a diverse set of knowledge and understanding.

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...

These are not points in dispute, either. Sin enslaves and it does so deterministically. What sin causes is more sin, even the moral act done by means of sinful flesh is sin. It is for that reason God can and does declare a righteous act filthy rags (Isa. 64:6) and say He wants nothing from the sinner.

 

[Arial]

Do you deny the possibility of Cain's not killing his brother?

Good question.
If we look at Jesus going to the cross, there is no possibility that men would not crucify Him because God and Jesus both purposed that He would go to the cross. And yet, God did not make evil me crucify Him. They did so because they wanted to. We have two motives here that end with the same result. God's was for good. Man's was for evil out of jealousy.

This is true also that even though Scripture tells us that Jesus was tempted as we are, it was also impossible for Him to sin. God's purpose in Him coming as one of us was to be perfectly righteous so as to be our substitute and conquer sin and death. Because of God's purpose, it was impossible for Him to sin.

Let's take the case of Joseph and his brothers. What they meant for evil God meant for good. Because of God's purpose for Joseph, to save his brothers, and also for Israel to go into bondage in Egypt, and then be rescued and delivered by God etc. etc., it was impossible that his brothers would not be sold into slavery. God's purpose good. His brother's evil, therefore they are responsible for their evil.

Or how about Assyria. God purposed judgement on His people through Assyria so it was impossible that they would not come against Israel and impossible that His people not be taken into captivity. Yet Assyria also determined to do this for completely different reasons and were not coerced into doing so, and God did not make them do it. They were responsible as God made clear when He said in effect, "I know who you are and I know where you life."

So was it possible for Cain not to have murdered Abel or not? As long as there are other options, theoretically other possibilities exist. But do they really exist?

 

[Josheb]

Good question.
If we look at...............

So was it possible for Cain not to have murdered Abel or not?

And the answer is..............?

As long as there are other options, theoretically other possibilities exist. But do they really exist?

Only two options: Either Cain could have not killed Abel, or he could only have killed Abel. There's no middle ground here, like, Cain could have killed Abel a little .


Hint: Notice I specified the act. I did not generalize it. I asked, "Could Cain have not killed Abel?" not "Could Cain have not sinned?"

 

[Arial]

And the answer is..............?

Only two options: Either Cain could have not killed Abel, or he could only have killed Abel. There's no middle ground here, like, Cain could have killed Abel a little .


Hint: Notice I specified the act. I did not generalize it. I asked, "Could Cain have not killed Abel?" not "Could Cain have not sinned?"

Neither did I generalize it and I posed the question to see what your answer to the question would be given what I posted. I didn't get an answer from you. You simply repeated the question. I have no idea where you got the idea that I was saying anything about whether Cain could have not sinned.

 

[Arial]

I asked a question. The question was reworded, but not answered. I repeated the question because it was not answered. I've asked it twice and the question has still not been answered. I have already answered my own question. When my question is answered then (maybe) I'll answer all the questions subsequently asked.


Is the possibility of Cain not killing his brother denied?

Yes. I do not speak for @makesends. The reason I deny it is because it served a purpose of God or it wouldn't have happened. As illustrated by my post, which an astute reader would have recognized.

 

[David1701]

As I recall, some versions use the word, "intended".

They're synonymous, in the context of Gen. 50:20.

 

[Josheb]

Yes.

I agree.

Edit: My regrets. I said "yes, I agree" when I meant the opposite. Relevant to the subject of this op Cain did possess that ability not to kill his brother. He did not possess an ability not to sin, so even the decision not to kill his brother would have come from a mind, will, and body of sinful flesh. He could have not killed his brother but he could not have never sinned. He could have abstained from one sin, but not all sin.

And every single one of us demonstrates this every single day when we choose not to do any one particular sin but sin elsewhere.

 

[David1701]

I asked a question. The question was reworded, but not answered. I repeated the question because it was not answered. I've asked it twice and the question has still not been answered. I have already answered my own question. When my question is answered then (maybe) I'll answer all the questions subsequently asked.


Is the possibility of Cain not killing his brother denied?

That depends on what is understood by "possibility", in this context.

Was Cain capable of the necessary understanding to avoid killing Abel? Yes. Was he physically capable of refraining from killing Abel? Yes.

In the above sense, it was possible for Cain not to have killed his brother; however...

Was it possible that history could have turned out differently (thus affecting all future events)? No, in this sense there was no possibility of Cain not killing his brother. The causative effect of Cain's internal and external circumstances produced his desire and his desire produced the will, then the will produced the murderous act.

P.S. There is never the possibility for things to turn out differently from how they do, otherwise God's omniscience, omnipotence and aseity would not exist.

 

[Josheb]

That depends on what is understood by "possibility", in this context.

Was Cain capable of the necessary understanding to avoid killing Abel? Yes. Was he physically capable of refraining from killing Abel? Yes.

I agree.


I'll refrain from further comment because the rest of your post has little to do with the point attempted with the other poster (and I partly disagree, find the argument post hoc fallacy, and do not want to further digress until the matter with the other poster is resolved). Thank you for answering the question asked and doing so readily and directly with succinct explanation. Appreciated.

 

[Mod46]

I agree.


I'll refrain from further comment because the rest of your post has little to do with the point attempted with the other poster (and I partly disagree, find the argument post hoc fallacy, and do not want to further digress until the matter with the other poster is resolved). Thank you for answering the question asked and doing so readily and directly with succinct explanation. Appreciated.

Please refrain from trying to micro manage every thread you are in and others in the conversation and from ad hominem comments about other posters.

 

[makesends]

I asked a question. The question was reworded, but not answered. I repeated the question because it was not answered. I've asked it twice and the question has still not been answered. I have already answered my own question. When my question is answered then (maybe) I'll answer all the questions subsequently asked.


Is the possibility of Cain not killing his brother denied?

Yes. I do not speak for @makesends. The reason I deny it is because it served a purpose of God or it wouldn't have happened. As illustrated by my post, which an astute reader would have recognized.

I thought I answered that question —well, that, and I'm not sure I'm the one of whom @Josheb is speaking.

But, anyway, I'll try to answer it satisfactorily. Arial did an excellent job of saying pretty much my reasoning but with far fewer words!

Yes, I deny the possibility. Some reasons, in no particular order:

1) Obviously it didn't happen. It is not empirically supported that it could have happened.

2) God intends for things to go precisely as they do, and that, for his own reasons. There is no B team. (—And other such expressions and implications of the axiom: God causes all things.) Of course, I realize that from your POV this will be circular reasoning to use this to show why it could have gone no differently for Cain. I only include it here because it is an axiom, for me, and not as an attempt to prove it to you.

3) This is like point #2 but by way of example from Calvinistic doctrine, as I understand it to go (Remember that I have never studied Calvinism formally): The self-determinist claims the Calvinist posits automatic results, and therefore, to be consistent, the Calvinist may as well not care to obey, not struggle against sin, because "que sera, sera". But no, the Calvinist is not claiming anything is automatic, but only SURE, (and I add to that, "Whether good or bad on our part, so that God's purposes stand, God does as he will, and that is good.") So, with Cain. The story and the event is rich with God's purposes, with seemingly innumerable immediate and long-term effects. We have no reason, to my knowledge, anyway, why God would have things go any differently, long term (and therefore, short term, to achieve the long term results.) What God purposes is sure to happen.

4) (—Really just a restatement or conclusion to #3, here)

5) The simple logic of causation: God is First Cause. There is no other uncaused causer. Thus all things subsequently are effects caused immediately or by secondary causes (means) as a result of first cause. Every cause but first cause is an effect of first cause, down to the word, "EVERY". Every effect, (as far as I can tell), is sooner or later also a cause.

Cain was caused to exist, and to cause everything he caused.

6) God knew when he created, every effect. Yet he created anyway. I have no recourse but to believe he intended, then, that every effect be caused. Cain is an effect. God had not other plan in mind for Cain, as far as I can tell. —Options from among which Cain must choose? Certainly! —Possibilities from among which Cain has the determining vote? Not at all.

 

[makesends]

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.

Agreed, so far.

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) .

No argument against any of this, so far.

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 .

FWIW, the Immanence and Simplicity and a few other things, to me imply necessarily that he is intimately involved in everything that is and happens.

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.

I love the notion I posit, perhaps unwarranted, but I don't think so, that only God can do "new". It may be accurate also, that everything God does is "new". But, perhaps that last is more poetic than useful, I don't know. However, it seems to me to make a certain sense.

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.

I love it. I was right there with you up until "uncaused causes."

Logical leap there, I think. Where is warranted, the "new, uncaused causes"? (lol, you almost caught me skimming past it!)a Is this circular reasoning, using the notion of uncaused causes (plural) to add to the meaning of, or to define, "new"? I can understand how it rings true to you, because it has a poetic feel, and I too, am intrigued by such things, but I see no more than poetry here. Or is that just a mention of your stand on the matter, and not an attempt at proof?

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.

If what's true? You've lost me here, again. How does any of the true things, (and I agree, as far as I know, with everything you mention in this last set I quote, except for the last sentence), mean that I "have to rethink this idea everything came from only one cause"? (I quote it as you say it. I'm not sure you meant to say it that way. I don't think everything came from only one cause. I do think that everything originated with first cause, but there are (but for God's ability to count) innumerable causes. But they all descend causally, one way or another, from first cause. Thus, he caused them. But every causes subsequent to his causing also caused effects, further causes.)

I'm stopping here, over 10,000 characters

 

[makesends]

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.

What does this mean, "over which God remains omni-attributed."?

But if it is not correct and true that Humans can also contribute uncaused causes, then the question is bogus. I don't yet see any reason to think they can contribute uncaused causes. And I do see several very good reason to think that they cannot.

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 .

But you see no logical self-contradiction. You have God causing something uncaused —no, I didn't say 'directly causing', but nevertheless causing it.

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.

I agree with all that, (if your little green men picture indicates direct effect of first cause, apart from secondary causes), up to the last phrase. HOW, I ask, can anything not be causally dependent on first cause? I can't see it.

You keep repeating this demonstration that God 'inserts' himself within time as well as before time. I agree, (I am not a deist), but I don't get how it is relevant to the discussion of whether there are uncaused causes caused by God.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
makesends said:
I don't think you can show that humans can disregard unknown influences.

I do not think you can prove humans must regard unknown influences.

Of course. In fact, they cannot 'regard' unknown influences. I was trying to say something along the lines that since they don't recognize unknown influence, it is certainly not by their direct intent, but by contingency, that they act according to it, or that they 'disregard' it.

Josheb said:
....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.

makesends said:
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.

—my point being that all of those descriptions (actions?) are semantics. If we are talking about motivation according to knowledge of influence then if they don't know, they don't MEAN TO act accordingly.

I feel like I am missing something here, because I don't take you to be one to discuss something so pedantic at such length.

To be clear: for any sinful creature the cause is always sin.

Yes, obviously, agreed, and the sinner is the cause of his own sin; and the 'advent' of sin is as James describes, "...but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.." THERE is the immediate cause of sin. THERE is where sin begins. If it helps, I will say that "God caused that sin be", rather than "God caused 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.

Frankly, I find no dilemma there. Our notion of justice is not God's. God can do whatever he wants with his creation. The notion that the production of the Bride of Christ (etc names) could have been done without our hated 'collateral damage' is immaterial. (I don't believe it could have, because that produces a [supposed] paradox, and a [not only supposed] logical self-contradiction. I say that God has the right to do as he pleases with what he made, and it be justice though we don't see it so.)

Yep. Good so far.

Since time is the measure of case and effect the critics are correct.

I disagree. Time is OUR measure of cause-and-effect —not THE measure of it. And according to recent (the last 40 years or so) claims concerning quantum physics show an effect preceding its cause. (I don't believe it, frankly, but it is curious.).

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.

Not so sure.

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.

I don't follow that. How so? Why should first cause fit within a chain, when he is the beginning to the chain?

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.

agreed

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.

Don't see how that follows.

 

[makesends]

God did not cause sin's entrance into the world.

God did not generate sin. God did cause everything that causes sin. Therefore, by chain of causation, God caused that sin be.

But the ontology of sin is unique among what we call "things". In my opinion, it does not qualify as a thing the same way other 'things' are things— being, as some reformers are careful to say, the "privation" of good, and not properly anything in and of itself. I'm not entirely happy with that assessment, in part because it feels like equivocation, and because of certain objections that raise their ugly heads: In Genesis 4 God refers to sin almost as a living entity. “...sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” And it seems to me that it at least qualifies as a governing principle, and I think of governing principles as necessarily "things".

But regardless, I agree with you that God did not "make sin", but I disagree with you that God did not "cause that sin be". The logic of causation is too straightforward for me to deny it.


From what I can tell, if there is a leak in the dike of determinism, it is here. This may be the only place you will find a way to convince me that God is not exhaustively determining. But, of course, there is a LOT more to Hamartiology than this. And this, the discussion of 'ontology' of sin, is OUR ontology of sin —not quite God's.

 

[Arial]

MY INTENT with this thread is not to argue whether "Determinism" implies 'double-determinism', nor whether it is implied that God's primary use for the reprobate is to condemn them. Please don't go there unless it is necessarily part of and argument to the point that @Josheb and I are working on here.

From Post #597 of the thread, Covenant of Works. https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/covenant-of-works.1320/page-30#post-53719 in which Josheb answers me.

Because of the length, I have cut this OP into two posts.

Since I was chastised soundly for butting in to the discussion by another poster, please clarify. Is this a private debate. There is a section on the forum for that.

 

[Josheb]

Please refrain from trying to micro manage every thread you are in and others in the conversation and from ad hominem comments about other posters.

Never happened.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, I deny the possibility. Some reasons, in no particular order:

1) Obviously it didn't happen. It is not empirically supported that it could have happened.

That is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, and as such it is utterly fallacious. I am surprised to read more than one poster here making that argument. It should be erased from our repertoire. That something did happen is not proof prior events are causal.

2) God intends for things to go precisely as they do, and that, for his own reasons. There is no B team. (—And other such expressions and implications of the axiom: God causes all things.) Of course, I realize that from your POV this will be circular reasoning to use this to show why it could have gone no differently for Cain. I only include it here because it is an axiom, for me, and not as an attempt to prove it to you.

No one knows what God intends unless and except where He explicitly discloses His intent. Nowhere does scripture state God intended Cain to kill Abel. Assuming that position based on a a post hoc argument is fallacious.

3) This is like point #2 but by way of example from Calvinistic doctrine, as I understand it to go (Remember that I have never studied Calvinism formally): The self-determinist claims the Calvinist posits automatic results, and therefore, to be consistent, the Calvinist may as well not care to obey, not struggle against sin, because "que sera, sera". But no, the Calvinist is not claiming anything is automatic, but only SURE, (and I add to that, "Whether good or bad on our part, so that God's purposes stand, God does as he will, and that is good.") So, with Cain. The story and the event is rich with God's purposes, with seemingly innumerable immediate and long-term effects. We have no reason, to my knowledge, anyway, why God would have things go any differently, long term (and therefore, short term, to achieve the long term results.) What God purposes is sure to happen.

LOL. we have no reason or knowledge why God has things go the way they go on any occasion, unless He has explained it. Why does He have you posting in this thread? That every action serves God's purpose is not in dispute. That God intends every action to serve His purpose is in dispute. That God forces Cain's action (or your or my actions) upon him is in dispute.

5) The simple logic of causation: God is First Cause. There is no other uncaused causer. Thus all things subsequently are effects caused immediately or by secondary causes (means) as a result of first cause. Every cause but first cause is an effect of first cause, down to the word, "EVERY". Every effect, (as far as I can tell), is sooner or later also a cause.

Cain was caused to exist, and to cause everything he caused.

Buy you have agreed humans can add causality and I believe you agreed God has added causes other than the first cause. Your "logic" is not very logical. That humans could not think, will, or act if they did not exist (the first cause) is not in dispute. That is NOT meticulous determination. You've conflated general causality with meticulous causality and have been arguing a straw man conflation for about a dozen posts now.

God caused Cain's existence. Because of that existence, everything Cain did happened solely because God caused that existence. That is NOT the same thing as saying God caused Cain to kill Abel. That is NOT the same as saying Cain could not possibly have done anything other than kill his brother, and post hoc arguments are just as fallacious, absent in logic and reason, as the conflation of general causality with meticulous causality.

It is not very Calvinist for any of you to be making that argument. Calvinist would have attributed Cain's action to sin and the nature of sinful flesh, not God. Calvin would have said Cain's actions still served God's purpose. Calvin did not hold the two to be mutually exclusive of one another. Some, like Pink, would disagree. Others, like Sproul would agree.

6) God knew when he created, every effect. Yet he created anyway.

Horse before the cart. What God created He created the way He created it because it all served His purpose. His creation is not a contingency, it is not an "anyway."

I have no recourse but to believe he intended, then, that every effect be caused.

No, you have other recourses, but they are not being given due consideration, and the logic of what is believed is very faulty in many ways.

Cain is an effect.

Yes, he is. That is not a point in dispute and repeating it does not change any of the facts in evidence. Cain is also a cause.

God had not other plan in mind for Cain, as far as I can tell.

Prove it. Do so without appealing to post hoc or false cause fallacies.

— Options from among which Cain must choose? Certainly! — Possibilities from among which Cain has the determining vote? Not at all.

Then you have, as I stated previously, run into the classic dilemma of Cain's responsibility, culpability, and accountability, and you're still conflating general causality (his existence) with meticulous causality (every decision made after his existence, and assuming only one line and no possibilities are possible because a post hoc argument is believed rational when it is not.

And not considering other possibilities .

Which means this thread itself has run into the classic dilemma because if your argument is correct then you cannot post anything different than you have and your next words have already been determined by God, you do not have any choice in the matter, no possible alternative exists , and if the post contains sinful words it was God who caused you to sin because His creating you determined every single word you will ever post.

You sure you want to stick with that position?

 

[Josheb]

Agreed, so far.

No argument against any of this, so far.

FWIW, the Immanence and Simplicity and a few other things, to me imply necessarily that he is intimately involved in everything that is and happens.

Except that God is not the author of sin, does no violence to the human will, and does no violence to the contingencies (the uncertainty or unpredictability) of secondary causes.

This is very important.

Calvinism asserts God's omni-attributes and sovereignty. Calvinism asserts God as having ordained all things from eternity BUT Calvinism does so with stated limitations. When Calvinists ignore one or the other side of that "equation" they stop being Calvinist. God ordained all things BUT He is not the author of sin. In other words, God ordained the occurrence of sin BUT He ordained it in a manner whereby He Himself did not make sin happen. He did not cause sin. God ordained the existence of humans, and the human will BUT everything He ordained before, during, and after did not do violence to the human volition. God ordained all things from eternity BUT His ordaining did not do violence to the contingencies of secondary causes but established them. His ordaining established secondary causes. His ordaining established secondary causes that possessed unknown and unpredictable effects.

God is omniscient, but omniscience means only that God knows all that is possible to know. It does not mean God can or does know what is logically unknowable. He does not know how to make a cubical sphere because - by definition - the premise of a cubical sphere is irrational and unknowable.

I reiterate: Calvinists who do not embrace all that Calvinism teaches and pit one side of Calvinism in opposition to another have stopped being Calvinists.

Where is warranted, the "new, uncaused causes"?

I have already answered that question. Go back and re-read the posts.

If what's true? You've lost me here, again.

Without any intent to condescend or sound that way, the "lostness" is obvious from the posts. Logical fallacies have been deployed and various aspects of Calvinism have been posted in opposition to one another.

How does any of the true things, (and I agree, as far as I know, with everything you mention in this last set I quote, except for the last sentence), mean that I "have to rethink this idea everything came from only one cause"?

I've answered that question, too. Go back and re-read the posts. Ask me something I have not already addressed.