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

[Josheb]

God did not generate sin.

Then something else generated it. Something or someone else caused its generation, its existence, and its causality to exist.

God did cause everything that causes sin.

....but He did not generate sin. Something else generated sin, its existence and its causality, and its effects. You cannot have this both ways because if God is the cause of all causes and that means every little detail of your life is caused by God then that applies to sin, too.

Therefore, by chain of causation, God caused that sin be.

Chain of causation is not meticulous causation. You are being inconsistent and contradicting your own posts.

But the ontology of sin is unique..

Cop out. Nothing is unique if all things have a single cause. They all necessarily share the common and inescapable condition of God causing their existence and all their causality and all their effects). Nothing is unique in that paradigm.

.....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".

Sophistry.

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.

What you call "the logic of causation" is not very logical. It's not particularly consistent with Calvin, either.

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.

It's not a "leak." It is the unadulterated truth of scripture stated clearly, explicitly, specifically, and bluntly. It is by one man's disobedience that sin entered the world where sin did not previously exist. Scripture lays the cause firmly and exclusively on Adam, not God.

And Calvinism, correctly understood, allows for an occurrence not authored by God. It allows for God NOT violating the human will to cause sin. It allows for God establishing secondary causes, and contingencies caused by those causes.

 

[David1701]

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.

Post hoc? Yes, of course it's post hoc; how could it be otherwise ... at least, from a human, linear time perspective; however, from God's perspective, who knows the end from the beginning, terms like "post hoc" are irrelevant.

 

[David1701]

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.

We can only choose not to commit a particular sin because God has willed it to be so. Could Joseph's brothers have chosen not to sell him into slavery? No, they could not have so chosen, because God intended it to happen (and there are several other specific examples of this principle, in the Bible).

 

[makesends]

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.

Lol, no, it is not private. I welcome all comments. Well, almost all. (There are two or three I hardly talk to anymore on this site, who I'd rather stayed out of it.)

 

[His clay]

I wrote this a little while back in this forum, and I bring it up again because it seems relevant to the current discussion.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/responsibility-and-causation.55/

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
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.

Your aggressive stance is a bit over the top. I didn't claim it was proof. Only that arguments to the contrary are not empirically supported.

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.

Good —since I did mention that this was not proof, but axiomatic for me that God intends that all things happen. But I am beginning to wonder if you depart from the WCF here, where it says in 3.1 that ...God has freely and unchangeably ordained whatever happens...

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.

You equate God 'causing with intent', with God 'forcing'. Strange.

Buy you have agreed humans can add causality and I believe you agreed God has added causes other than the first cause.

I'm not sure you are not taking me wrong here. You mention humans, but I say, all things are causes, (as far as I know).

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.

I'm going to cut to the chase, again, here, because every argument you make against my notions carries the same theme, assumes the same self-contradiction every time, denying the simple logic of causality (with which 'law' scripture is also in agreement.)

General causation, whether intended or not, is, or results in, meticulous causation. But it is intended.

I'll give you again the simple Law of Causation, with which I think you said you agree, which says that every effect has a cause. I think we are also agreed that God is not an effect. You agree, below, that Cain could have done nothing if God had not caused his existence. But, as I have said before, like I tell the Arminians who believe that God foreknows everything, (though they deny that means much more than 'God foresees it'), that if God knew what would come of what he caused, yet caused it anyway, God intended that it come to pass. I'm not saying there that he likes it, but that he intended that it happen and caused it. If he knew everything, that implies that he intended meticulously.

You seem to deny, though, either that God foreknew everything (though I don't recall you saying so), or that, (—I'm having a hard time putting the antithesis into words, because your thesis doesn't make sense to me—), everything (but God) is an effect. You have even used the same phrase the Arminian uses, "limited autonomy", which, frankly, makes no sense to me. Unless you are speaking in terms of such things as mechanical or computer systems, or governments, or citizens uncontrolled by governments or by other citizens —i.e. self-government— 'autonomy' means, on its own, freedom from external control or influence; independence. Either a man is autonomous, or he is not. Limited autonomy simply does not compute, if God intended all things resulting from his causation.

So far, in this post, I have spoken Deistically, though I don't hold to Deism. But to me, it is more than enough to show that God causes all things subsequent to himself.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

To me it is not a dilemma. You may not like it, but God has every right to create something to be destroyed at the end of its 'meanwhile' usefulness. There is nothing unholy or unjust in that. Remember, that nobody will be punished beyond what they deserve.

And not considering other possibilities .

Using the term, 'possibilities,' loosely, of course...

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.

To me there is no dilemma. Just as it is a poor hermeneutic to interpret scripture, or to reason to a doctrinal conclusion, based on one's own notions of what God's love or God's justice is; it is not proof to the negative if it "just doesn't feel right." You are supposing that if God has determined absolutely all things, that one has no choice. That is not so. I hope you don't also assume that the command implies the ability to obey.

By way of illustration, God has chosen certain ones for his particular love, and given them undeserved mercy. He will bring to conclusion what he has begun. It is a SURE thing. That doesn't make it automatic, nor forced. We are intensely involved and so is HE. Everything we do and that he does, is for that end.

Thus too, we choose according to the options laid before us. The fact that we choose by no means implies that he had no say in what we chose.

We say that we are sinners by Adam's sin; is that just of God to have created us all, knowing this was going to happen? Of course! There is no need for any implication that we choose outside of God's causation. And it is illogical to say that we could choose outside of his causation. But I see I'm repeating myself.

You sure you want to stick with that position?

Position on what —meticulous causation, or that Cain could not have done other than to kill Abel? But no matter. I have no doubts yet, beyond my usual self-scepticism, that God meticulously causes all things, and that Cain could not have chosen to do anything except what God ordained that he do. Should not have chosen —now, that is another matter.

 

[makesends]

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.

As we have discussed. I disagree with your definition of contingencies, not to mention that the WCF is not my Bible. But regardless, these things, rather than being violated, are established by his ordaining, as the WCF says. That, at least to me, does more than just allow that these things might happen, but causes them to happen.

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.

He caused that sin be. That is not to author it. As I said before, the authoring of it is shown in James 1: "14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." You amazingly even agree with me, when you say, "God ordained all things...", and, "God ordained the occurrence of sin..." If God "ordained all things", then he ordained our choosing, or wills, and our choices. "All" there, is very meticulous sounding to me.

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.

Are you not adding, there, by "...secondary causes that possessed unknown and unpredictable effects" —are you assuming that is what the WCF meant? And "unknown and unpredictable" to whom? You have not shown, (though I will grant that you tried, and didn't just assert it, as others have done), that anything is unknown or unpredictable to God. Do you promote the notion of 'middle knowledge'? I certainly hope not. But up until you, to my experience, the notion that anything is unknown or unpredictable to God has been roundly rejected by Calvinists.

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.

Not only is it irrational. It is not a thing. But this isn't what we are talking about, is it? You have been proposing that man can make decisions that God does not cause, nor, with this last post, does he even know.

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.

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

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.

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

 

[His clay]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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?

"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"
Odd, that you would presume the standard of libertarian freedom for choice-making, when compatibilism has an alternate view that takes into account choice-making. Determined choices are still choices, even when they cannot be otherwise. (1) Like the internal causation that takes place in Classical Arminianism and Calvinism on account of depravity, though two objects of choice are present to the individual (sin or not sin), the preferred one is what one chooses. (2) Like the determination of the crucifixion in Acts 4:28, their choices are included in the "to do" of the verse. Their choices were perfectly real choices, regardless of pap (principle of alternate possibilities) being wrong in the libertarian sense. They chose exactly what they wanted; they considered objects of choice future to themselves, and they choose in accord with their highest motives or preference.

I've given two scenarios now that demonstrate that pap (i.e. the libertarian view of possibilities) does not exist within the scenarios, but that the choices are perfectly real in accord with the compatibilist view of choice-making. Further, the idea that I could be otherwise than I am at the moment of choice or each moment before is a violation of the law of identity. And if I cannot be otherwise, then my choices certainly cannot be otherwise, for I cannot be otherwise than who I am at the moment of choice.

 

[His clay]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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?

"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."

I'll give a rather gratuitous example of the fallacy. The eruption of Mt Vesuvius happened in AD 79; Pontius Pilate was born before that time. Therefore, Pilate's birth caused the eruption. (after this, therefore because of this type of argument)

One can immediately see that the chain of causation is more complex than just giving a point before an event and assigning causal status of the prior event to the event after. Further, Pilate's birth and the resulting life that he lived was causally distinct from the geological phenomena happening during his time in another region of the world. The fallacy is about assigning false causality due to timeline alone. In the above case of the volcano and Pilate, a different cause brought about the eruption than Pilate. Just because Pilate was around before the eruption does not mean that Pilate was the cause of the eruption. Why? Because the causal system has more going on that just Pilate and a volcano.

What the fallacy is not asserting is "That something did happen is not proof prior events are causal." The fallacy is about assigning false cause due to timeline, not about asserting non-causal events. You seem to be misreading the nature of the fallacy.

Another example: The postman walked into the house, and then a ball launched out the window. Therefore, the postman launched the ball out the window. The logic is not sound because the boy kicked the ball out the window just after the postman walked through the door. The boy is the cause of the ball being launched out the window. Again, misplaced cause due to timeline.

 

[His clay]

Unfortunately, I could not sleep due to difficult thoughts. So, I hope that my posts are readable anyway . . . in spite of the late hour. The writing of the prior two posts has greatly helped to provide a needed diversion. I wish everyone the best in this discussion.

 

[makesends]

Then something else generated it. Something or someone else caused its generation, its existence, and its causality to exist.

....but He did not generate sin. Something else generated sin, its existence and its causality, and its effects. You cannot have this both ways because if God is the cause of all causes and that means every little detail of your life is caused by God then that applies to sin, too.

Chain of causation is not meticulous causation. You are being inconsistent and contradicting your own posts.

Cop out. Nothing is unique if all things have a single cause. They all necessarily share the common and inescapable condition of God causing their existence and all their causality and all their effects). Nothing is unique in that paradigm.

What? All things have the same first cause. Who said anything about them having only a single cause? While your axiom, "Nothing is unique if all things have a single cause." is debatable, there's no need to go there. It's irrelevant.

Sophistry.

Kindness

What you call "the logic of causation" is not very logical. It's not particularly consistent with Calvin, either.

It's not a "leak." It is the unadulterated truth of scripture stated clearly, explicitly, specifically, and bluntly. It is by one man's disobedience that sin entered the world where sin did not previously exist. Scripture lays the cause firmly and exclusively on Adam, not God.

And Calvinism, correctly understood, allows for an occurrence not authored by God. It allows for God NOT violating the human will to cause sin. It allows for God establishing secondary causes, and contingencies caused by those causes.

You just finished, in another post to me, agreeing that "God caused the occurrence of sin." What is the difference between that and what I say, "God caused that sin be"? God created, sin resulted. No, I am not saying that God is the author. Look to James 1:14, 15 for the author of sin. But again, I'm repeating myself.

I'm not asking you what Calvinism allows for. We have been talking about what Calvinism teaches, I thought. And you aren't answering me whether Calvinism does not teach Libertarian Free Will. I thought it did not, yet here you go.... I haven't formally studied Calvinism. I have studied Scripture, at length, formally and otherwise, and I find certain things to be true and logical, and some empirical. Up until you, I thought that what I had found was very close to Calvinism. But maybe not.

Determinism doesn't say that God is the author of sin. YOU said it yourself: "God caused the occurrence of sin". I said, "God caused that sin be." What is the difference? None, except in your mind where somehow you think that God also caused the self-contradictory Libertarian Free Will.

 

[Arial]

Not only is it irrational. It is not a thing. But this isn't what we are talking about, is it? You have been proposing that man can make decisions that God does not cause, nor, with this last post, does he even know.

That statement by @Josheb runs very close to the Open Theists view of the omniscience of God. The only difference is that he defines what he means more precisely than the Open Theist to be restricted to He has no knowledge of things that are impossible, whereas they expand it to mean He does not know things that have not happened yet. However I say God made cubes and spheres so He does have knowledge of what they are and what they are not, so the argument really has no relevance to the discussion.

Here is what I have been thinking about the OP this morning, and what we have found in the debate as to what happens in these discussions and why it is never really resolved. It cannot be resolved entirely by the finite human mind trying to define and pin down the otherness of God, who is eternal, self created, and therefore logically the first cause of all that is. We can only know what is knowable to us, and when it comes to God and the way in which He governs His creation, we can only know what He tells us. And in what He tells us we know who He is and who we are in relation to Him. Created beings under the rulership of Him.

So, we often lose sight of the otherness of God as we attempt to solve questions we naturally have. We do not forget that He is outside of time and we are bound by it; or that we can only see things in the perspective of time; but we end up in a somewhat tangled philosophical rather than a theological debate. We can do nothing less. The otherness of God is beyond the reach of anything we have experienced, and will not fit into our words, our ideas, our minds.

And yet, He does show us frequently in the Scriptures, and I would say in all of them, but sometimes very specifically, that no matter what we see here within our boundaries of space and time, there is something God is doing that we cannot see, but we need to learn to trust. After all, faith in Him, which is trust in Him, is the issue from the Garden of Eden on.

We have the story of Joseph that actually began within time long before Joseph was ever born, with Abraham. Gen 15:13-15 Then the Lord said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in the land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgement on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age And they shall come back here in the fourth generation for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." God is not only doing something there but over there with the Amorites.

We are told of Joseph being sold into slavery in Egypt and it was through this that Israel came into bondage in that land. We are told that after four hundred years of this bondage the king of Egypt died, and one might suppose they hoped this would be the cause of things getting better for them but things got worse. But at the right time---time being from our perspective only---God came to their rescue. I could go on and on through this all the way to Christ being born in Bethlehem. It all connects and we see it played out in time. God is the One governing it. And not bit by bit, piece by piece, but because being outside of time as He is, He planned it before any of it entered time. It was complete before creation and He brought it to pass. Contingencies exist within time and among the actions of finite beings, but they do not exist with God. And they do not affect His plan or purpose. We are allowed to see who He is through what He tells us, but we cannot see, and certainly not tell Him, how He goes about doing it in the infinite and eternal. We see the results, not the cause or causes, in a theological sense.

And then we come to our responsibility in light of all this. All creatures that He created from His own self existence are automatically responsible to the One who made them. It can be said, and without taking the anomalies that our fall has rent on the natural world, the only thing in His creation that does not do what it was created to do is mankind, and that only in the area of responsibility to his Maker, and the way in which we were created to be in relationship with our God. Nevertheless, all of mankind still has that responsibility.

Bottom line, we have no idea what is going on "behind the scene" in the otherness of God. We are told to trust and obey Him.

 

[Arial]

I wrote this a little while back in this forum, and I bring it up again because it seems relevant to the current discussion.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/responsibility-and-causation.55/

Yes. Libertarian free will leaps from God is the cause of all things, to that makes Him the author of sin, without any theological reason and logic entering into the picture. This naturally brings up the question what is the cause of evil or sin. We do not know within the economy of God any more than we are told.

We know from many things written in the Scriptures, that God is not the author of sin, but we also know something that Jesus said, John 8:44 "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer fro the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." We also have Jesus speaking of another Father in John 16:28 :I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father."

We have two beings spoken of as father. One is self existent, eternal, holy, both in otherness and morally. The other is created, responsible to the Creator, rebellious against his Creator---sinful, but not created sinful as Holiness cannot create what is inherently sinful. He can and did create that which can by personal choice driven by desire, to rebel and become sinful. It is through the devil, this other father, that sin entered into mankind. That in no way removes or lessens man's responsibility to God, so all who sin do so without coercion from God, and without Him being the author of sin.

God's being the cause of all things is misinterpreted by LF from the moment the idea is presented. What the statement means, and it really should always be clarified, is that nothing created exists outside of His having brought it into existence. He is the one and only self existent being. Sin and evil are not created. They are not creaturely. Good is the absence of not good. Evil is the absence of good.

 

[Josheb]

Your aggressive stance is a bit over the top.

Thank you for your time.

 

[ReverendRV]

Thank you for your time.

Would y'all be interested in a Moderated Debate here?

 

[Josheb]

As we have discussed. I disagree with your definition of contingencies,

And as I replied, opinions are worthless. Words mean what words mean.

, not to mention that the WCF is not my Bible.

Neither are the words "Calvin" or Calvinism." Arguments from silence are fallacious.

But regardless, these things, rather than being violated, are established by his ordaining, as the WCF says.

Yep. The secondary causes are established by God. The contingencies are established by God. The unknown and unpredictable effects of secondary causes are established by God. It is not okay to change the meaning of words because the normal, ordinary, commonly used definitions are not liked and something else is imagined in their place. .

That, at least to me, does more than just allow that these things might happen, but causes them to happen.

Yes, God caused unknown and unpredictable things to happen.

He caused that sin be. That is not to author it.

Sophistry.

Not only is it irrational. It is not a thing.

That is correct.

But this isn't what we are talking about, is it?

It is (partly) what we are talking about. That God must know and thereby cause every detail is a gross misrepresentation of orthodox theology. Not all knowledge is causal, and God does not know all things if "all things" is construed to mean He knows the logically unknowable. That's not orthodox theology and it is not orthodox Calvinism, either.

You have been proposing that man can make decisions that God does not cause...

Yep. Nope. WCF explicitly states God does no violence to the human will. Meticulous determinism does violence to the human will. I have long argued a compatibilism whereby God does deterministically decide what will happen and every decision every human freely makes (within the limits of God's designs) conspires to have that happen. It's meticulous determinism that conflicts with itself and Calvinism.

...nor, with this last post, does he even know.

LOL! Then, again, what I have posted has not been adequately understood and since we're now repeating content already posted unnecessarily and you've resorted to ad hominem...

Your aggressive stance is a bit over the top. I didn't claim it was proof.

...I'll be moving on. There is nothing aggressive or "over the top" in my posts.

 

[Josheb]

"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"
Odd, that you would presume...

No, what's odd that you would presume I presumed when the facts in evidence show every single concern broached in Post 68 has already been addressed (and much if it in agreement).

 

[Josheb]

"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."

I'll give a rather gratuitous example of the fallacy. The eruption of Mt Vesuvius happened in AD 79; Pontius Pilate was born before that time. Therefore, Pilate's birth caused the eruption. (after this, therefore because of this type of argument)

One can immediately see that the chain of causation is more complex than just giving a point before an event and assigning causal status of the prior event to the event after. Further, Pilate's birth and the resulting life that he lived was causally distinct from the geological phenomena happening during his time in another region of the world. The fallacy is about assigning false causality due to timeline alone. In the above case of the volcano and Pilate, a different cause brought about the eruption than Pilate. Just because Pilate was around before the eruption does not mean that Pilate was the cause of the eruption. Why? Because the causal system has more going on that just Pilate and a volcano.

What the fallacy is not asserting is "That something did happen is not proof prior events are causal." The fallacy is about assigning false cause due to timeline, not about asserting non-causal events. You seem to be misreading the nature of the fallacy.

Another example: The postman walked into the house, and then a ball launched out the window. Therefore, the postman launched the ball out the window. The logic is not sound because the boy kicked the ball out the window just after the postman walked through the door. The boy is the cause of the ball being launched out the window. Again, misplaced cause due to timeline.

Now apply that to the premise seeing the ensuing events necessarily proves God alone deterministically caused the events. Post 69 is a good explanation of post hoc fallacy, but it completely fails to apply it to the posts in question. You have, imo, wasted your time and mine because the post was not applied to the thread and did not move the conversation forward one bit. The argument in the earlier posts was that the proof of determinism is the effect(s). That is a fallacious argument.

 

[Josheb]

What? All things have the same first cause.

Not if God adds other causes independent of His first cause.

 

[Josheb]

Would y'all be interested in a Moderated Debate here?

Not me. The matter of determinism within Calvinism is too diversely held to be definitively resolved to one specific point (which has always been an irony of the subject ), especially not with anyone who acknowledges not specifically studying or understanding Calvin and the ~ism he begat.