• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.

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

Not me. The matter of determinism within Calvinism is too diversely held to be definitively resolved to ne 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.
I suppose I will eventually start a simple, easy trial Debate over in the Private Debates Forum; and see how it goes...
 
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.
@Josheb has implied elsewhere, or so I took it, that it is more than just Open-Theistic-style ignoring or logically self-contradicting notions, but that God is causally 'hands-off' (my phrase) about our choosing. I simply find no need for that construction, and it seems to me also logically self-contradictory —one of those things that "God doesn't bother to entertain", so to speak.

"In Him we live and move and have our being." to me is relevant to the WCF's "...establishes them." (WCF chapter 3.1)
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 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.
As to the whole post, thanks, and well said, apt and appropriate. I particularly like the sentence, "All creatures that He created from His own self existence are automatically responsible to the One who made them." That's something that applies directly to the fact that it is TO HIM we are responsible, and not to our notion of morality: Thus, he is not under obligation to treat us according to OUR notions, but has every right, and is just, to do as he pleases with us. I call it ownership.

I agree with all as I first read it, except for near the very end, where you say that mankind does not do what it was created to do. But I think I know what you meant — I just wanted to point out that ALL things fall out how God intended. Mankind is able to rebel against God, (and apparently even angels, too, though that's not relevant to the point), as moral agents. Thus choice is implied, but not Libertarian Free Will (and yes, @Josheb , I admit that is merely an assertion, since I do not support it here.)

There is something I so often want to say, but don't know how. I wish I could find succinct statements of it and copy them down somewhere. They run in several lines, here overlapping somewhat, since (I think) they are really all that one thing I don't know how to say:

1) That causation from a single beginning 'first cause' (God himself) logically implies that ALL subsequent causes and effects are caused, to include every principle and reality down to the most minute particle of matter and energy. The law of causation is comprehensively pervasive. (And for a quick answer to the protest that God's existence violates the law of causation: No, it doesn't. God is not an effect. The law of causation reads: All effects have a cause.") "Every effect must have a cause, for an effect, by definition, is some-thing that is caused. Thus, for anything to exist, an uncaused some-thing—or someone—must exist." https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/first-and-primary-cause

2) That we have a mindset that assumes that any'thing' we can think of is a valid consideration, ontologically "a thing". The same mindset wants to put degree and category to God's abilities and attributes, ignoring (as you said) his complete "otherness". But it gets worse:

3) That God does not see things how we do, to delineate them in his thinking in terms of 'the original 6 days' as different from 'inserting himself into our timeline'. (Poorly stated, that, but I hope you get the point.) Thus, his omnipotent creating includes his immanence.

4) WE are the ones who keep thinking we have to arrange things according to category. It's true we must, to discuss them —maybe even to think about them— but that doesn't mean categorization as a principle is "the way of things".

5) That there is no "sort of", such as (for example), "limited autonomy" in the sense that we argue here. There is no partial causation. There is no ... —There is, or there is not. It is, or it is not.

6) While it is good to hold one's logical processes loosely and to not entirely trust one's conclusions, to suppose the 'possibility' of the illogical is intellectual 'dispersion'. Our minds don't work that way. One has to ignore all the "buts" to maintain the notions thus produced. (It can become as much a habit to do so as to ignore one's conscience.) And so we "force God" into these places he can't fit.

7) And I hope it isn't just my 'dispersion' talking: That God's Grace is pervasive, in fact, it the way this world continues though fallen. Grace is the means by which even we believers are ever forgiven for our post-regeneration sins. Grace is not just the means to the faith by which we are saved, but is the means to the faith by which we continue to live for God (whatsoever is not of faith is sin). I don't think, when God says, "Well done, good and faithful servant", that when the crowns are laid at his feet he will say, "No no, really, thank you, but really, I didn't do this —YOU did!

8) This is GOD'S making.
 
I agree with all as I first read it, except for near the very end, where you say that mankind does not do what it was created to do. But I think I know what you meant — I just wanted to point out that ALL things fall out how God intended.
I agree and I should have used the word "created" to do, rather than "intended" to do.
There is something I so often want to say, but don't know how. I wish I could find succinct statements of it and copy them down somewhere. They run in several lines, here overlapping somewhat, since (I think) they are really all that one thing I don't know how to say:
Join the club. And I think we often see things that are beyond words, being fininite as we are. It is a bit like sitting down to worship God, saying the right and true words, believing them with out whole heart, but the words sound so inadequate, so far from what God as God commands of the creature in His very being. But I do believe our heart reaches to the heavens as it should. It is just that all we have is words, words, and more words. And it is also very difficult to communicate what we mean and feel to another when it is coming from a place that was really between us and God. Like saying to a person who thinks salvation meant they found God, to "Seek God!"
1) That causation from a single beginning 'first cause' (God himself) logically implies that ALL subsequent causes and effects are caused, to include every principle and reality down to the most minute particle of matter and energy. The law of causation is comprehensively pervasive. (And for a quick answer to the protest that God's existence violates the law of causation: No, it doesn't. God is not an effect. The law of causation reads: All effects have a cause.") "Every effect must have a cause, for an effect, by definition, is some-thing that is caused. Thus, for anything to exist, an uncaused some-thing—or someone—must exist." https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/first-and-primary-cause

2) That we have a mindset that assumes that any'thing' we can think of is a valid consideration, ontologically "a thing". The same mindset wants to put degree and category to God's abilities and attributes, ignoring (as you said) his complete "otherness". But it gets worse:

3) That God does not see things how we do, to delineate them in his thinking in terms of 'the original 6 days' as different from 'inserting himself into our timeline'. (Poorly stated, that, but I hope you get the point.) Thus, his omnipotent creating includes his immanence.

4) WE are the ones who keep thinking we have to arrange things according to category. It's true we must, to discuss them —maybe even to think about them— but that doesn't mean categorization as a principle is "the way of things".

5) That there is no "sort of", such as (for example), "limited autonomy" in the sense that we argue here. There is no partial causation. There is no ... —There is, or there is not. It is, or it is not.

6) While it is good to hold one's logical processes loosely and to not entirely trust one's conclusions, to suppose the 'possibility' of the illogical is intellectual 'dispersion'. Our minds don't work that way. One has to ignore all the "buts" to maintain the notions thus produced. (It can become as much a habit to do so as to ignore one's conscience.) And so we "force God" into these places he can't fit.

7) And I hope it isn't just my 'dispersion' talking: That God's Grace is pervasive, in fact, it the way this world continues though fallen. Grace is the means by which even we believers are ever forgiven for our post-regeneration sins. Grace is not just the means to the faith by which we are saved, but is the means to the faith by which we continue to live for God (whatsoever is not of faith is sin). I don't think, when God says, "Well done, good and faithful servant", that when the crowns are laid at his feet he will say, "No no, really, thank you, but really, I didn't do this —YOU did!

8) This is GOD'S making.
Well that was a walk through straining at the boundaries. :ROFLMAO: And I mean that in a good way. I am pretty sure I understand what you are saying and if I do I agree with it.

Also it almost at times seems to me that He is so Other, so vast, so unfathomable so----- that we are presumptuous to even talk about Him. I understand the OT Jews not wanting to even say His name. And yet we are to do these things.
 
@Josheb has implied elsewhere, or so I took it, that it is more than just Open-Theistic-style ignoring or logically self-contradicting notions, but that God is causally 'hands-off' (my phrase) about our choosing.
I never said any such thing.
 
Would y'all be interested in a Moderated Debate here? 😉
Not sure if that would do the job, but I'm willing to try. But I'm not trained in formal debate.
 
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.
FWIW, I do want to know if your position represents Calvinism, but more importantly, I want to discuss/debate the what the Title of the thread says —not just what Calvinism says about it.
 
FWIW, I do want to know if your position represents Calvinism, but more importantly,
Then you will have to actually read what I post and read it until it is understood and not misrepresent it multiple times.
I want to discuss/debate the what the Title of the thread says —not just what Calvinism says about it.
The posts prove otherwise. A case consistent with Calvinism and whole scripture has been presented. What was posted has been misconstrued, misrepresented, and abused. That is not discussion.
 
makesends said:
I get nothing out of that paragraph that deals with the facts of God's creation. Whether God 'intrudes' on the natural, or whether he causes the natural to 'coincidentally' cause his decree is irrelevant to the fact that everything that comes to pass is by his decree, which fits perfectly the simple logic of causation.

For that to be correct the word "decree" must be plural, and not limited to one act on His part.
Yes. God's decree is abundantly plural in its effects. But call it God's decrees, if you wish. To me, "he spoke, and it was so".




You are. You explicitly stated every cause is an effect of an earlier cause that can all be traced back to the first cause and nothing can happen but what does happen. That is a single line of cause and effect. If, in your mind, you imagined this was not linear then there are huge inconsistencies between how this is conceptualized in your mind and how it is articulated in the posts.
Wrong. Any effect can be traced back through a single line of causation, yet, almost any effect is also caused through other lines of causation, all lines converging in the end, one way or another, at First Cause —i.e. God himself. In the beginning, God.

As I think I said before, this is particularly attributable with the human will. It is not at all uncaused, but is caused to do what it does by many influences, to include the inclinations of the heart, which are also the result of many lines of causation.
You do. Again, perhaps this is not being thought through to its logical conclusions but if there is no possibility of anything happening but what does happen then there are not multiple options from which any will might choose. The perception of possibilities, of options from which a person might limitedly or autonomously choose is an illusion that does not and is not an accurate reflection or understanding of reality. All mention of choosing is sophistry, all thought of choice a delusion.
You attribute a higher level of consciousness to the human mind than it possesses, I think. You also assume a few facts not supported, such as that it is not choice if the options are only illusions of possibilities. Our mind doesn't need to know which is actually going to happen, in order to choose. But once chosen, it becomes empirically obvious (yes, that's redundant) which was going to be chosen.
Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants...

He can call on whoever he likes but it's all kabuki because nothing can possibly happen what does happen.
You yourself have answered this many times, I think, to Arminians. We all choose according to our inclinations, if only for the moment of decision. WHO is it that directs the heart? ("The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord; as the rivers of water, He turneth it whithersoever He will.")

1 Corinthians 7:12-13
But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.

Consent is an illusion if there is no possibility of anything happening but what does happen. Either there is no will or great violence has been done to it. Neither is Calvinism correctly understood. Calvin wrote quite extensively about the will, the liberty of the will, and the limits thereof.
I disagree entirely. We are not consulted for MOST of the things our minds must consider daily. Why not complain that God made you hungry, or complain that you are full? Most of the time, we do not reprimand even ourselves for feeling what we feel, nevermind complain to God who one way or another caused things to be what they currently are.
 
makesends said:
Whatever God has not caused directly is still caused, though indirectly, by God, and usually by many many lines of causation.
Not if only what has happened could have happened.
makesends said:
MOST effects are the result of not only long lines of causation, but multiple lines of causation.
Not if ONLY what happened could have happened.
I don't understand how not. Let's consider the will, the desires, the inclinations of the heart. Many things bring that about. And so we choose accordingly, do we not? We always choose between what we consider the options. We even speak that way, but it makes no difference as to the facts —we always choose what God decreed.
There are no decisions to be made if ONLY what happened could have happened.
I disagree
There is only one influence if ONLY what happened could have happened.
I disagree.

makesends said:
Perhaps he's sick because of all the causes that engineered Covid 19. Perhaps his mother called him an idiot. Perhaps a beautiful woman smiled at him. Perhaps he read some verse. Perhaps perhaps perhaps. I don't think anyone can demonstrate that anyone's choices are uninfluenced, and that, from many different directions.
None of which exist if ONLY what happened could have happened.
This seems only circular to me. I consider you more intelligent than myself. Maybe you can explain how this is so, and the other two claims above it, without posting a presumption as the basis for your reasoning.

makesends said:
And meticulous causation knows exactly what choice he will make as a result of those influences, both those turned away from and those accepted, to include one's own inclinations —all caused.
No, that is not what meticulous causation means. Theologically speaking, meticulous causation means God meticulously causes each and every event. He is the first and only cause of everything, not just the first cause of the first cause or the first cause of the only cause from which all secondary causes and effects ensue.
Wait a minute. At the face, at least, meticulous causation only means that each cause (and implied, effect) was meticulously caused —i.e. not by accident or by chance, but purposed, intended. If you mean something else by it, I didn't know. Maybe we are arguing apples and oranges.

But if by the meaning of meticulous causation, we both mean God exhaustively intended and caused absolutely all things to come to be, then it is not implied, though you seem to think so, that no other causes are used as means. You have asserted that it is so, but it remains to be proven.
 
I've been doing a little studying. Not a ton, but some. I think that you are more right than you know. But I will wait on a larger, more definitive post. Hopefully, I can contribute something here within the next week. Maybe consider it a Christmas gift. :)
 
Back
Top