Free Will ~yet again.

[makesends]

WCF 3.1​

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.​

fastfredy0 said:
My stance is that God is the cause of everything.

Yes, He is the uncaused cause. However, according to the Westminster Confession of Faith, the first cause of creation that was ordained from eternity did no violence to the human will or the contingency of secondary causes (see Article 3.1). In other words, when correctly understood monergism implicitly asserts and affirms human volitional agency, the existence of secondary causes, and secondary causes having contingencies.

And I wonder whether @Rella knows that. Misrepresentations are quite common (on both sides of the debate ).

@fastfredy0 , I don't know if you were privy to it, but @Josheb and I have had a bit of a go-round about this very thing. I'm not sure we have it resolved yet, or even if I understand him correctly but because of his caustic manner, it seemed to me better to back off, at the time. As I understand him, he gives absolute ontology (self-existence) to "contingency", or rather, to contingencies, in the context of the WCF. To me, that is a logical impossibility, several ways, but most relevantly, that the meaning of "contingency" only indicates, in, "One thing is contingent upon the other.", that, "One thing depends on the other for its coming to pass (or its being)." If one thing is, or did, it is [logically] necessarily because the other thing is, or did.

To lance an old boil, @Josheb , I don't hear the WCF say, as you misrepresented above, that the "first cause of creation....was ordained" —I'm hoping that was a typo on your part, or a Freudian Slip, but I do recall you speaking the same way in the confusion of our past arguments, as though first cause was only an effect of God's causing, and that God Himself was not First Cause— nor do I hear the term, "human will", though obviously it is logically included under "will of the creatures" (yes, I'm being unnecessarily picky); but mostly I see no way the WCF intends "will of the creatures" to imply "freewill", particularly in the "libertarian" sense, nor (as before) do I see contingencies to be anything but logically within the chains of causation, and not to be "up in the air", or not themselves sure to precisely fit God's ordained facts. There is no such thing as chance —all facts are sure, and not subject to, "it could go either way". It can only go one way, regardless of how we see it.

Further, regardless of how you or I see this, logic demands that all things besides God being subsequent to him (or to his causation), that the facts are established by his ordaining, just as the WCF says, and therefore, contingencies and the will of creatures are necessarily a result of his causation. It is redundant to say it, and I'm not sure you disagree, but it defines "liberty" and "contingencies" in the WCF's statement.

 

[fastfredy0]

did no violence to the human will

I'm not sure what WCF meant by "did no violence to the human will".

or the contingency of secondary causes

Contingency defined: an event (such as an emergency) that may but is not certain to occur
Seems to me that God knows everything that is going to happen so I don't know what they meant by that statement either.

Aside: I am a big WCF fan

In other words, when correctly understood monergism implicitly asserts and affirms human volitional agency,

I agree that man has choices. I propose that man chooses according to his desires and his desires are pre-programmed by God who also uses secondary that God controls to program our desires i.e. Gen 50:20.

 

[fastfredy0]

but because of his caustic manner, it seemed to me better to back off, at the time.

Yeah, his ideas insightful ... his people skills not so much. (I sometimes wonder if he had previous ID of PreacherforTruth... but I digress)

As I understand him, he gives absolute ontology (self-existence) to "contingency", or rather, to contingencies, in the context of the WCF. To me, that is a logical impossibility, several ways, but most relevantly, that the meaning of "contingency" only indicates, in, "One thing is contingent upon the other.", that, "One thing depends on the other for its coming to pass (or its being)." If one thing is, or did, it is [logically] necessarily because the other thing is, or did.

Yeah, I just posted that I didn't understand the WCF "contingency" thing and posted such at same time your posted this.

first cause was only an effect of God's causing, and that God Himself was not First Cause

I believe God is uncaused and is the only author of First Causes. To be uncaused one must be eternal and immutable which God is. I believe God controls every atom during every moment of created time. I sort of like the idea that God is recreating all of creation every moment; that no thing as power to continue to exist save that God sustains it (Acts 17:28a, Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3, Romans 11:36, Job 34:14-15, John 1:3)

as you misrepresented above, that the "first cause of creation....was ordained" —I'm hoping that was a typo on your part, or a Freudian Slip

I'd have to see what I wrote ... anyways .... I believe all events of creation have been ordained/decreed by God; that God's providence is the execution of His Decree.

I see contingencies to be anything but logically within the chains of causation, and not to be "up in the air", or not themselves sure to precisely fit God's ordained facts. There is no such thing as chance —all facts are sure, and not subject to, "it could go either way". It can only go one way, regardless of how we see it.

Agreed.
I don't what the WCF means for 'contingencies'.

Further, regardless of how you or I see this, logic demands that all things besides God being subsequent to him (or to his causation), that the facts are established by his ordaining, just as the WCF says, and therefore, contingencies and the will of creatures are necessarily a result of his causation.

Agreed. (but then I only agreed because God determined I would do so ... giggle)

 

[Josheb]

WCF 3.1​

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.​

.....but because of his caustic manner, it seemed to me better to back off, at the time.

I don't have a caustic nature, nor am I sure why that needed to be said, or what purpose it served @makesends.

As I understand him, he gives absolute ontology (self-existence) to "contingency", or rather, to contingencies, in the context of the WCF. To me, that is a logical impossibility, several ways, but most relevantly, that the meaning of "contingency" only indicates, in, "One thing is contingent upon the other.", that, "One thing depends on the other for its coming to pass (or its being)." If one thing is, or did, it is [logically] necessarily because the other thing is, or did.

To lance an old boil, @Josheb , I don't hear the WCF say, as you misrepresented above, that the "first cause of creation....was ordained" —I'm hoping that was a typo on your part, or a Freudian Slip, but I do recall you speaking the same way in the confusion of our past arguments, as though first cause was only an effect of God's causing, and that God Himself was not First Cause.....

....and that is where the mistake was made. God is The Uncaused Cause, not the first cause of creation. The first cause of creation is Genesis 1:1. It has no "absolute ontology," and everything that has ever existed is predicated upon it.

 

[Josheb]

I'm not sure what WCF meant by "did no violence to the human will".

Can you be sure forcing someone to do make a choice would do them violence?

Contingency defined: an event (such as an emergency) that may but is not certain to occur
Seems to me that God knows everything that is going to happen so I don't know what they meant by that statement either.

Aside: I am a big WCF fan

Yep. The "contingency" of the WCF could simply mean on event causally follows another. Either way, what the WCF is asserting is that God is NOT meticulously causing every detail. If humans have volitional agency, then that agency serves as a cause. If the causal agency of limited human volition is denied, then God has done violence to the creature's will.

I agree that man has choices.

Do those choice affect others?

I propose that man chooses according to his desires and his desires are pre-programmed by God who also uses secondary that God controls to program our desires i.e. Gen 50:20.

Hmmm... so we're machines, computers that do only what is dictated by our programming? How is that better than being a puppet?

What about the "programming" of sin?

 

[fastfredy0]

Either way, what the WCF is asserting is that God is NOT meticulously causing every detail.

Hmmm, then I don't agree with the WCF. I believe God meticulously causes every detail; that creation does not have power of its own; that God's sustains all of creation moment to moment. To the extent God does not cause something we have another First Cause which is deism. My opinion. I am a big fan of WCF.

If the causal agency of limited human volition is denied, then God has done violence to the creature's will.

I believe God controls our will. For instance, I never choice to have a sin nature, said nature being a major cause of my will/desires.


Re: I [Fastfredy0] agree that man has choices.

Do those choice affect others?

Yes.
I define a "choice" as the option to do A or B. Note: my will (desire) may be such that I would never choose "A".

Hmmm... so we're machines, computers that do only what is dictated by our programming? How is that better than being a puppet?

Yes, the analogy of comparing us to machine/computers seems fitting to me. Why is such a description a problem? Would it mean that the Christian faith is false, or would it contradict the Christian faith.
Consider: If I can make a moral action that is self-determined (independent of God's causation) then God becomes my robot/puppet/machine; now it is God that is programmed to respond to my actions appropriately. God is not longer independent of His creation.

• Psalm 33:10 The Lord nullifies the counsel of the nations; He makes the thoughts and plans Of the people ineffective. 11 The counsel of the Lord stands forever, The thoughts and plans of His heart through all generations.
• Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man’s mind, But it is the Lord’s purpose for him that will stand (be carried out).
• Job 35:7 “If you are righteous, what do you give God, Or what does He receive from your hand? 8 “Your wickedness affects only a man such as you, And your righteousness affects only a son of man [but it cannot affect God, who is sovereign]”
  

What about the "programming" of sin?

Oh, fighting dirty ... giggle.
“If it were not a good that evil should exist, its existence would not be permitted by the omnipotent God, who without doubt can as easily refuse to permit what He does not wish, as bring about what He does wish. And if we do not believe this, the very first sentence of our creed is endangered, wherein we profess to believe in God the Father Almighty.” Augustine Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
My thoughts:
Premise1: When Christians get to heaven they will never sin again (like the holy angels)
Conclusion: Seems like God can "deprogram" us in regard to sin

Premise1: Sin is not a thing; rather, the lack of something good; a defect.
Premise2: God created the world and it was good (no moral defects)
Premise3: Everyone has a sin nature (Psalm 5:5) save Adam and Eve
Conclusion: Either Adam or God programmed us in regard to sin. If Adam did the programming then Adam is the First Cause. Adam, being a creation does not have the ability to be a First Cause of anything.

• Judges 9:23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem, [which aided him in the killing of his brethren ]
• 1 Samuel 18:10 Now it came about on the next day that an evil spirit from God came forcefully on Saul,
• 2 Samuel 24:1 The Lord “incited” David to take a census of the people, but afterward David recognized this as sin, saying, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done” (2 Samuel 24:10),
• Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I make peace [national well-being] and I create [physical] evil (calamity); I am the Lord, Who does all these things.

... or the answer God gave Job about WHY ALLOW SIN!

Job 38: 1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,
2 “Who is this that darkens counsel [questioning my authority and wisdom]
By words without knowledge?
3 “Now [a]gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you know and have understanding.5 “Who determined the measurements [of the earth], if you know?Or who stretched the [measuring] line on it?
6 “On what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,

Romans 9:19-20
yada, yada

aside: I enjoy your posts ... good insights .. don't beat me up too badly

 

[Josheb]

Hmmm, then I don't agree with the WCF. I believe God meticulously causes every detail; that creation does not have power of its own; that God's sustains all of creation moment to moment. To the extent God does not cause something we have another First Cause which is deism. My opinion. I am a big fan of WCF.

I believe God controls our will. For instance, I never choice to have a sin nature, said nature being a major cause of my will/desires.

There are a variety of implicit conflicts in the above.

Throughout the thread I have been endeavoring to communicate to @Rella the simple fact the human will is not free because free means absent any and all controls, restrictions, and limits. That should be prima facie, overtly obvious to anyone and everyone. That the existence of controls, restrictions, and limits is not obvious is, unblessedly, a reality with which we must deal in the discussion of this subject. I tried to get some obvious examples listed, such as the limits of time, spaced, gravity, knowledge/ignorance, infirmity, etc., but it was fairly difficult and unless I have missed a post the discussion has ended with a handful of questions remaining unanswered (like can I jump off a cliff and will the laws of physics undone?).

• The WCF asserts a will exists.
• The WCF asserts a will exists that God did not violate in eternity.
• The WCF asserts the existence of secondary causes.
• The WCF asserts contingency to the secondary causes.
• The WCF assert liberty to the secondary causes.
• The wording of the WCF says "liberty or contingency" of secondaries causes.
• The WCF asserts God did not violate the causal liberties (or contingencies) of secondary causes He ordained.

The assertion of secondary causes is, in and of itself, is not a particularly remarkable or landmark statement since any cause after, "Let there be....." would be a secondary cause. A leaf bending under a rain drop falling under the force of gravity would be a secondary cause. One of the often-unattended details of the WCF is that the word "causes" is plural, not singular. The implication being that one even could effect multiple causes, not just one. If that is true then the passing of time is not singular and linear, but a vast matrix of causes and effects, each begetting the matrix or, rather each cause-and-effect is more accurately cause-and-effects (plural).

It is very common for doctrines to redefine words or use ordinary words in unusual or extraordinary way. This is especially true in Calvinism. Total depravity does not mean a sinner is totally depraved. It simply means the depraving effects of sin are so total that they prevent the sinner from coming to God specifically for salvation with his/her own (sinful) faculties, unaided by God. The same redefinition occurs with the rest of TULIP (and it causes a lot of confusion for those who do not bother to look up the terms for themselves). This is why I asked for a definition of the word "free." This is also why I linked to the definition of "contingency." When it comes to the word "contingency," the word could simply mean one event is causally predicated upon the preceding one = A causes B. That should be obvious to ALL, regardless of their soteriological orientation. However, there is nothing particular "liberty" in a simple and direct causal relationship that is singular in origin and singular in result.... especially if God has decided the cause and the effect, and all the more so if He has dictated the cause and dictated the only effect possible to the exclusion of all other possibilities. That is not liberty. The WCF does not assert control of every cause and every effect so that every effect then becomes a single cause for a single event, which in turn, becomes only one cause for only one event. The first caused cause caused a multitude of subsequence causes and effects.

There is a Watchmaker but, He is not blind. Appeals to the "blind watchmaker" are strawmen in this instance. God can make a watch and maintain its functions relying on His design AND intervene with the watch's functions anytime He so chooses with His eyes wide open, alert, conscious, interactively participatory, and involved. The abandoned left to run as it was designed is NOT what I have espoused, but neither is the watch one that must constantly have a watchmaker constantly around, constantly intervening to constantly make the watch constantly work. That is just as much a misrepresentation of scripture as the blind watchmaker's abandoned watch. It is neither deism nor despotism. The analogy of the action figure of which I spoke is relevant. Any god can make an action figure that does only what it is made to do. It does not even take a god to do that. I can make a mold in the shape of a human and pour in some plastic into it and make a figure I can control. I can tell a huge story about that man I made, write it down, and publish it. There is nothing remarkable about any of that.

To make a truly sentient creature in the image of God AND endow it with a real volitional agency in a world rife with controls, restrictions, and limits by My design AND maintain eternal interactive involvement without doing violence to any of it is incredibly remarkable.

People tend to simplify it to comprehensible portions and then pick one side or the other as best they can understand their own simplifications. That is not the WCF. The authors of the WCF put the bit in their mouth and ran into the fray of what is a near-infinitely complex creation. God ordained it all. God ordained everything from eternity. He did not author sin (the existence of sin being acknowledged and acknowledged as an anti-thing not of His doing). He did no violence to the will of the creature (the will being asserted defacto through implication). The creature in this discussion being the creature made in His own image (could we correctly say His image is born without volitional agency?). Secondary causes as asserted, and those plural causes have liberty or contingency (and not just a simple, simplistic, self-determining cause-and-effect relationship).

Consider: If I can make a moral action that is self-determined (independent of God's causation) then God becomes my robot/puppet/machine; now it is God that is programmed to respond to my actions appropriately. God is not longer independent of His creation.

That is incorrect (and no one has said a moral action is self-determined), but if the contingency of a secondary cause means nothing more than a simple A causes B relationship then you've already made God your robot/puppet/machine and creation independent of God .


The poles are rarely correct in theology.

 

[makesends]

I don't have a caustic nature, nor am I sure why that needed to be said, or what purpose it served @makesends.

My bad. And you are right —even if you did, it did not need to be said. I am sorry.

....and that is where the mistake was made. God is The Uncaused Cause, not the first cause of creation. The first cause of creation is Genesis 1:1. It has no "absolute ontology," and everything that has ever existed is predicated upon it.

I disagree. He is First Cause; all things are subsequent to him, and caused by him —thus he was (and is) the first cause. Genesis 1:1 may be first effect, and even secondary cause, but not first cause.

 

[fastfredy0]

Throughout the thread I have been endeavoring to communicate to @Rella the simple fact the human will is not free because free means absent any and all controls, restrictions, and limits. That should be prima facie, overtly obvious to anyone and everyone.

Agreed ... except obviously not "obvious to anyone and everyone" given the empirical evidence. *giggle*

I tried to get some obvious examples listed, such as the limits of time, spaced, gravity, knowledge/ignorance, infirmity, etc., but it was fairly difficult and unless I have missed a post the discussion has ended with a handful of questions remaining unanswered

Agreed... I was glad you took over our side of the discussion as I didn't have the patience.

The assertion of secondary causes is, in and of itself, is not a particularly remarkable or landmark statement since any cause after, "Let there be....." would be a secondary cause. A leaf bending under a rain drop falling under the force of gravity would be a secondary cause.

Well, here I don't agree depending on one's definition of secondary cause. From man's (science's) point of view it seems that the weight of a drop of rain causes the leaf to bend.
{Man] Science assumes the uniformity of nature (Y), but it cannot prove this principle – it is irrationally assumed. The biblical worldview (X) is the necessary precondition to render this assumption intelligible. Now, the biblical worldview in fact denies the uniformity of nature, but it affirms the doctrine of ordinary providence. That is, it is God who controls the world, and he does it in a regular manner, although he is free to deviate from his usual practice whenever he wishes. Since the biblical worldview is the necessary precondition for the assumption of any regularity in the world, it is a necessary presupposition that makes science intelligible. This does not mean that science is rational or that its theories and conclusions are true, but it means that no one can even make sense of science unless biblical principles are presupposed. The implication is that science can never disprove the Scripture or even argue against it. (Author unknown) Man/science assumes things run on their on power (deism). I believe God continuously causes all things to run.
Example:
When they arrived at the Jordan, they began cutting down trees. 5 But as one of them was cutting a tree, his ax head fell into the river. “Oh, sir!” he cried. “It was a borrowed ax!” 6 “Where did it fall?” the man of God asked. When he showed him the place, Elisha cut a stick and threw it into the water at that spot. Then the ax head floated to the surface. 7 “Grab it,” Elisha said. And the man reached out and grabbed it. God usually makes an axe sink, but He can do otherwise. Most would say the axe head sinking was a secondary cause and the ax head floating a first cause. I say both actions are a first cause. If "second cause" is defined as acting in normal way per man's law of science then I am OK with calling it a second cause.

but neither is the watch one that must constantly have a watchmaker constantly around, constantly intervening to constantly make the watch constantly work.

Here is where we disagree. Job 34:14 If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; 15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust. .... I interpret this to mean God must uphold the universe every moment.... the watchmaker must constantly intervene to constantly make the watch constantly work. Deism is the belief that some other power keeps the watch running should God disappear.

God is the cause of all things and upholds all things. Any claim of someone or something being self-maintained, self-caused or self-determined is a form of semi-Deism and/or dualism. If God is upholding the universe moment by moment the question is, what comes first logically, either:
Premise 1: God has to exert His power so the next moment will come to pass or
Premise 2: The next moment to come to pass before God upholds it
But how can God know what the future will be unless premise 1 be true. The answer is self-evident. Freewill supports premise 2 so God somehow knows what you will do and sustains your choice. This is illogical for God must know what is going to happen in the next moment in time in order to uphold it. God upholds/determines the decision you are going to make. As God must be with everything to be omnipresent, He must determine it to be omniscient. Unknown author

The poles are rarely correct in theology.

Agreed ... "the door is narrow and few that find it" so to speak.
Aside: at times you write at a level beyond my comprehension so that is an impediment to my replies. Thx for the interaction.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
as you misrepresented above, that the "first cause of creation....was ordained" —I'm hoping that was a typo on your part, or a Freudian Slip

I'd have to see what I wrote ... anyways .... I believe all events of creation have been ordained/decreed by God; that God's providence is the execution of His Decree.

I wrote that to @Josheb . Sorry for not making that plain.

 

[fastfredy0]

I wrote that to @Josheb . Sorry for not making that plain.

so, you're not perfect after all .... thx bro.

 

[Josheb]

I disagree. He is First Cause; all things are subsequent to him, and caused by him —thus he was (and is) the first cause. Genesis 1:1 may be first effect, and even secondary cause, but not first cause.

Maybe hairs are being split. The Uncaused Cause caused the first cause of creation. God is not the first of anything. He stands alone as the only One. I think that more accurate than saying God, the First Cause, that caused the second cause of creation. Time is measured when the effect occurs.

 

[Josheb]

God usually makes an axe sink, but He can do otherwise.

God made the world in such a way that an axe head normally sinks. He does not have to go check up on His work to make sure what He made to happen, happen. He does, however, need to intervene on His own design specs to make the axe head sink.

Most would say the axe head sinking was a secondary cause and the ax head floating a first cause.

That would not be my view. An Axe head sinks because of gravity (gravity being the cause of the axe's sinking). The axe floating would be due to an extraordinary cause, a cause that.... breaks the rules or, in the language of the WCF, does violence to the liberty or contingency of secondary causes. We call them "miracles" because they violate or exceed the otherwise normal rules of creation's design.

Here is where we disagree. Job 34:14 If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; 15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust. .... I interpret this to mean God must uphold the universe every moment.... the watchmaker must constantly intervene to constantly make the watch constantly work. Deism is the belief that some other power keeps the watch running should God disappear.

Re-read what I wrote.

God upholding the universe does not mean He is constantly controlling every minute detail. There'd be no sense in having any design were that the case. Think of all the content in the psalms and the prophets pertaining to God's design aspects of creation. When Genesis says God made the plants and animals to produce after their own kind that's a statement about design. God does not make each cow produce a cow and not a cockroach or a porpoise. The cow produces a cow because that is the way God made cows. If God wants a cow to produce 4 females and one male, then He intervenes with His own design to make that happen but that's a completely different kind of intervention if He causes the cow to produce a pig or a tiger (which He is completely capable of doing). That being said, if God "walked away" from creation - stopped sustaining it - then it would cease to exist altogether. Sustaining does not always require detailed manipulation. If it did, then He'd be a lesser God; a god who could not make a creation with a design that produced after its own kind.

God is the cause of all things and upholds all things.

NOT a point in dispute.

Any claim of someone or something being self-maintained, self-caused or self-determined is a form of semi-Deism and/or dualism.

NOT a claim I have ever posted.

If God is upholding the universe moment by moment the question is, what comes first logically, either:
Premise 1: God has to exert His power so the next moment will come to pass or
Premise 2: The next moment to come to pass before God upholds it

Or what God is upholding is the assurance the next moment will come to pass exactly as He designed it to do without any added exertion of His power.

You're still stuck in a dichotomy (what post was it where I first laid out the premise of a third option? ). The poles are the problem. The answer lies outside the false dichotomy. God can control things meticulously, but God does not need to do so because one of the things Heus sustaining and upholding is His design and its function; it's godly function. It is likely that the chief sustaining and upholding He does is to keep sin at bay because left to sin's own devices it corrupts, devours, and destroys everything and the only thing sovereign over sin is God.

But how can God know what the future will be unless premise 1 be true. The answer is self-evident.

Again, that is incorrect. The reason God knows the future is not because any of it is contingent on any series of causes. The reason He knows the future is because He exists outside of time and in eternity past, present, and future are ever-present, the always-ever-occurring-now for Him. The series of causes and effects we've been discussing are ALL an always now for Him.

Freewill supports premise 2 so God somehow knows what you will do and sustains your choice.

LOL. There is no such thing as a free will and "freewill," means nothing more than "voluntary"! You're begging the question. You can't presuppose a non-existent think is the explanation of anything.... especially a strawman condition that doesn't exist (no one has suggested a moment has to pass before God can uphold it).

This is illogical...

Yep. There's a lot of illogic in Post 389.

Agreed ... "the door is narrow and few that find it" so to speak.

LOL! Ironically, I would call the gospel an extreme position! That God would bother to save any from the trash heap is amazing! The SOP is to let it rot, decay, and burn away.

Aside: at times you write at a level beyond my comprehension so that is an impediment to my replies. Thx for the interaction.

Not sure what to make of that. I am sure I don't like it because I have every confidence in your ability to comprehend it. I did . I don't say this but there are posters whose posts read like they're a teenager, or an immature Christian not sufficiently verse in scripture. I assume there are also posters who read my posts and thing the same about me . I'm always (usually) willing to explain myself whenever I know where I may not be well-articulating myself. One poster recently explained something I said better than I did! You, me, @makesends, and @Rella have had this discussion (or tried to do so) many times before. The (chief) problem is not our ability to understand; it's our prejudices and allegiances to them. I, for one, rely on others to help me see my blind spots.

And I think I have suggested to you and @makesends the reading of Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace" (inexpensive, fairly easy read). He's supposed to be a theist, but the book was written as a secular work surveying what secular scientists so far understand about the universe trough "field" theories. The Christian will read it and recurringly think, "Yep, the Bible said that thousands of years ago! Why don't you guys just open your Bible?" Relativities revelation matter and energy are interchangeable, quantum mechanics' revelations subatomic particles can be in two places at once, and much more reconciles well with scripture. Sticking to old falsely dichotomous paradigms of either/or determinism or determinism aren't scriptural. Creation is much more complicated than Newtonian physics (or legalism versus antinomianism ). I am not a physicist. It takes some work, but I can understand it and I have every confidence anything I post can be understood by all. Do a study on words like "allows" and "permits" and see how many of them have to do with controls, restrictions, limits and.... design. Anyone supporting Intelligent Design explanations runs into internal conflict if the Designer can't rely on His design in some way. That does not mean free will is a real thing. It's not. I've been unequivocal about that.

 

[makesends]

Maybe hairs are being split. The Uncaused Cause caused the first cause of creation. God is not the first of anything. He stands alone as the only One. I think that more accurate than saying God, the First Cause, that caused the second cause of creation. Time is measured when the effect occurs.

Maybe. I'm guessing at this point you are saying, First Cause, but meaning, First Thing Caused. I don't know. If God caused something, and all things other than he himself are subsequent to him, then to me, he is first cause. I do like your comment, though, that he stands alone as the only One. And to me, that means that in our attempts to organize the facts in our minds, i.e. logic according to our terminology, he has to be First Cause. To me, First Cause is, logically, every bit that unique. All but first cause descends causally from first cause. And First Cause by definition cannot be the effect of any cause. "Uncaused".

But oh well. As long as you know what I mean, there.

The bigger problem I see at this point is the nebulosity of just what does cause what you think the WCF is referring to by "contingency". Are the secondary causes not caused? If secondary causes own their own "liberty or contingency", independent of causation, then the statement makes no sense to me. It is self-contradictory.

If second causes are governed by their liberty or contingency, I can agree with that. That says no more than to say that creatures will to do what they do. But the notion that contingency means that, as @fastfredy0 quoted from the online dictionary, "a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty", it can only be true as far as WE are concerned, and not as God is concerned. Not only can he predict, but he CAUSED every fact.

But again, for the readers, I want to mention that God has established both the will, and the liberty and contingency of second causes, which to me implicitly means that HE is the cause of all that, and more, that there is no such thing as will or liberty and contingency of second causes, nor the effects of the will, et al, if he did not cause them; AND therefore, he caused their effects also. And, once again, if he knew what would happen, but caused (created) anyway, he intended what happened.

 

[makesends]

My comments to this from @Josheb responding to @fastfredy0 —i.e he was not writing to me.

My comments are usually about items below I have highlighted, though also about the force of his comments.

God made the world in such a way that an axe head normally sinks. He does not have to go check up on His work to make sure what He made to happen, happen. He does, however, need to intervene on His own design specs to make the axe head sink.

I expect @Josheb means to end the last sentence above with, "...make the axe head [float]."

But as to my view of the above, I tend to think that view is rooted in human temporal language. I, probably as much as the next man if not more than he, am accustomed to saying words to the effect that God is extremely efficient, wastes no motion or energy, but I say that as a temporally viewed statement. From his point of view I'm thinking that it there is no difference in difficulty or energy used to micromanage vs to set things on a course to run themselves. The reason, or, at least, one reason, I go with 'micromanage' (and that to such an extreme that no quantum particle nor field nor anything else that those might be comprised of, is only natural, but rather, that they are of stuff sourced directly from God.) To me that implies that he is intimately involved in every tiniest fact.

This notion is buttressed by such sayings as, "In him we live and move and have our being", and buttressed by such incomprehensible facts as his universal love, which the temporal view likes to pit as opposing his hatred for anything rebellious to himself, and buttressed by such theological notions as the Immanence of God.

(I frankly see little difference, from his end, between normal cause and effect, or what we call natural, and what is commonly referred to as his 'providence', and what we refer to as miracle. Miracle is only (to me) unusual. In a sense, ALL is miracle, or, at least, all is supernatural, being caused by God.)

That would not be my view. An Axe head sinks because of gravity (gravity being the cause of the axe's sinking). The axe floating would be due to an extraordinary cause, a cause that.... breaks the rules or, in the language of the WCF, does violence to the liberty or contingency of secondary causes. We call them "miracles" because they violate or exceed the otherwise normal rules of creation's design.

Re-read what I wrote.

God upholding the universe does not mean He is constantly controlling every minute detail. There'd be no sense in having any design were that the case. Think of all the content in the psalms and the prophets pertaining to God's design aspects of creation. When Genesis says God made the plants and animals to produce after their own kind that's a statement about design. God does not make each cow produce a cow and not a cockroach or a porpoise. The cow produces a cow because that is the way God made cows. If God wants a cow to produce 4 females and one male, then He intervenes with His own design to make that happen but that's a completely different kind of intervention if He causes the cow to produce a pig or a tiger (which He is completely capable of doing). That being said, if God "walked away" from creation - stopped sustaining it - then it would cease to exist altogether. Sustaining does not always require detailed manipulation. If it did, then He'd be a lesser God; a god who could not make a creation with a design that produced after its own kind.

To my view, and according to the philosophical Attributes of God, I have no recourse but to say there is no difference. He is intimately in it all and everywhere at once. Maybe more to the point, he, by creating timelessly, inhabits all fact intimately. He need not pay more attention to this that to that. He is not limited in his ability to handle it all at once. In fact, to him, (in my notion), it is already spoken into completion, which does not imply particular intervention as opposed to normal cause and effect, from his POV.

Or what God is upholding is the assurance the next moment will come to pass exactly as He designed it to do without any added exertion of His power.

Again, no difference, (in my view). It is no problem for infinite power, and makes no difference to him. For it to continue as designed takes no less of his power or attention than for him to intervene.

You're still stuck in a dichotomy (what post was it where I first laid out the premise of a third option? ). The poles are the problem. The answer lies outside the false dichotomy. God can control things meticulously, but God does not need to do so because one of the things Heus sustaining and upholding is His design and its function; it's godly function. It is likely that the chief sustaining and upholding He does is to keep sin at bay because left to sin's own devices it corrupts, devours, and destroys everything and the only thing sovereign over sin is God.

You describe God 'needing' to do something as if it is harder for him than to not do it.

I disagree, as I have said above, but I admit, I do not KNOW, but it only seems reasonable to me, and Biblical, that his sustaining and upholding design and function is no less difficult for him than to deal with every detail specifically as it occurs. But I entirely DO AGREE —vehemently, actually— that sin is of a different sort of thing altogether. If there was anything that bruised his heel, that was it. But for the joy that was before him, he went through it anyway, and not by accident.

Again, that is incorrect. The reason God knows the future is not because any of it is contingent on any series of causes. The reason He knows the future is because He exists outside of time and in eternity past, present, and future are ever-present, the always-ever-occurring-now for Him. The series of causes and effects we've been discussing are ALL an always now for Him.

The reason he know the future is because he planned it —decreed it— and is accomplishing every detail of it, to include causation via means, and cause-and-effect, and via what we think of as design and intervention.

LOL! Ironically, I would call the gospel an extreme position! That God would bother to save any from the trash heap is amazing! The SOP is to let it rot, decay, and burn away.

Amen that!

Not sure what to make of that. I am sure I don't like it because I have every confidence in your ability to comprehend it. I did . I don't say this but there are posters whose posts read like they're a teenager, or an immature Christian not sufficiently verse in scripture. I assume there are also posters who read my posts and thing the same about me . I'm always (usually) willing to explain myself whenever I know where I may not be well-articulating myself. One poster recently explained something I said better than I did! You, me, @makesends, and @Rella have had this discussion (or tried to do so) many times before. The (chief) problem is not our ability to understand; it's our prejudices and allegiances to them. I, for one, rely on others to help me see my blind spots.

And I think I have suggested to you and @makesends the reading of Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace" (inexpensive, fairly easy read). He's supposed to be a theist, but the book was written as a secular work surveying what secular scientists so far understand about the universe trough "field" theories.

I bought it and read it and lost interest. He sounds like a cheerleader for his 'string theory' or something. Like what I feel after hitting click-bait. But, ok, maybe I'll try again.

 

[fastfredy0]

(I frankly see little difference, from his end, between normal cause and effect, or what we call natural, and what is commonly referred to as his 'providence', and what we refer to as miracle. Miracle is only (to me) unusual. In a sense, ALL is miracle, or, at least, all is supernatural, being caused by God.)

Agreed .... we call it a miracle when we notice God causes something to happen that contradicts what He normally causes to happen. If an axe head floats its a miracle as God 99.999% of the time God causes it to sink. If I go to a planet that is identical to the earth except axe heads always float then only when the axe head sinks on that planet do people call it a miracle.
God is the direct cause of any effect IMO. Most people would only say God is the First Cause of anything they observe if it breaks the rules we call science and then we say it's a MIRACLE. All other effects are Second Causes in the opinion of most people.

Hebrews 1:3a and the exact representation and perfect imprint of His [Father’s] essence, and upholding and maintaining and propelling all things [the entire physical and spiritual universe] by His powerful word [carrying the universe along to its predetermined goal]. AMP

 

[Josheb]

Maybe. I'm guessing at this point you are saying, First Cause, but meaning, First Thing Caused. I don't know.

No, the capital letters do not apply if it's not God. I mean God would be the cause of creation. To put it in different wording, God, would be the first cause and His action, either forming water or speaking light into existence (Gen. 1:2-3), would then be the cause of other effects or events. However, God is not caused. Nothing caused God. He is, therefore, The Uncaused Cause, put in capital letters to indicate His deity. If I understood your previous post correctly, then God, The Uncaused Cause is, in your wording, The First Cause (again, placed in capitals because of His deity). God caused the formation of water, or the creation of light..... and the water and light then became causal events themselves. The water and light became secondary causes (nothing grows without water or light, for example). Whatever was first caused by The Uncaused Cause that is The First cause, it does not get capitalized. The word "light" does not get capitalized unless it's a figurative reference to God, in which case its deity would warrant a capital "L."

So, the first thing caused would not be God. The first thing caused would not be capitalized.

I hope that is clearer now.

If God caused something, and all things other than he himself are subsequent to him, then to me, he is first cause.

That would make Him the First Causes. If He causes all events or effects, then He is causing multiple events or effects. If He is the sole cause of all events or effects, then there are actually no secondary causes. The perception of a secondary cause would be an illusion on our part because it would be only God, and not any predicate event, that caused whatever happened.

I do like your comment, though, that he stands alone as the only One.

If He is the only One cause of everything, then the WCF is wrong. There are no secondary causes.

And to me, that means that in our attempts to organize the facts in our minds, i.e. logic according to our terminology, he has to be First Cause. To me, First Cause is, logically, every bit that unique. All but first cause descends causally from first cause. And First Cause by definition cannot be the effect of any cause. "Uncaused".

Yep. I agree.

The bigger problem I see at this point is the nebulosity of just what does cause what you think the WCF is referring to by "contingency". Are the secondary causes not caused? If secondary causes own their own "liberty or contingency", independent of causation, then the statement makes no sense to me. It is self-contradictory.

And I have similar difficulty with what I understand of your alternative. If God is the sole meticulous Cause of all events, effects, or other causes and those causes do not have an inherent ability to effect causation on their own then there are no secondary causes. God is the causes, of everything, the cause of all the infinite myriads of effects. There is only one cause-and-effects. When we speak of "cause-and-effect," we are speaking of "God-and-effect." The falling raindrop does not cause the leaf to bend when it hits the leaf, God does that. If God did not bend the leaf, then something else would happen and whatever that event is, whether it be stopping on impact, passing through the leaf, disintegrating into nothing, etc., that event would be caused by God alone and not by any order or design He'd previously created in His creation.

The WCF is wrong. There are no secondary causes, so there are no liberty or contingency to any non-existent secondary cause.

If second causes are governed by their liberty or contingency...

There are not secondary causes if God is the sole cause of everything.

If second causes are governed by their liberty or contingency, I can agree with that. That says no more than to say that creatures will to do what they do. But the notion that contingency means that, as @fastfredy0 quoted from the online dictionary, "a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty", it can only be true as far as WE are concerned, and not as God is concerned. Not only can he predict, but he CAUSED every fact.

Yep. I do not read the WCF to say any uncertainty exists for God, only for us. ut the more salient point, I think, is that creation is designed to have inherent causation and that is what God sustains or upholds, even though He can and often does "enter" creation and cause additional causes - causes that are additional to the first cause He caused as The First Cause (the creation of water or light).

But again, for the readers, I want to mention that God has established both the will, and the liberty and contingency of second causes, which to me implicitly means that HE is the cause of all that, and more....,

So far I agree.

....that there is no such thing as will or liberty and contingency of second causes, nor the effects of the will, et al, if he did not cause them;

Which is self-contradictory and makes the premise of secondary causation in illusion or falsehood. If God is the sole cause of all causes and nothing caused has any inherent causation of its own then God is not just the First Uncaused Cause, He is the Only Uncaused Cause of all that exists. When Paul wrote "for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him," Paul should have written, "by Him all things are being created........., all things are being created through Him and for Him."

This lack of inherent causation also poses problems for God resting on the sixth day after creation was supposedly finished being caused or created.

AND therefore, he caused their effects also. And, once again, if he knew what would happen, but caused (created) anyway, he intended what happened.

Which is sorta correct but the "anyway" implies some kind of dismissiveness on His part. Let's not forget the WCF states God did not author sin. Sin happened without His authoring it. It was authored by something or someone else. It was originated by something or someone else . Scripture reports it was one man's disobedience, not God. Either that man had some degree of inherent causal agency or God is the sole cause and therefore the author, or originator, of sin and the WCF is again wrong. I suppose, if we put it into soteriological language, cause-and-effect is either monergistic or synergistic . The "sole working" is God causing all events and secondary causes not truly existing, and the "together working" is God and God's God-sustained and God-upheld design in which secondary causes exist by His creation. In the case of the former "intent" would be a bit of an unnecessary redundancy .

 

[Alive]

Question: are you guys confining the points of the discussion to the material universe as we observe it?

 

[fastfredy0]

God made the world in such a way that an axe head normally sinks. He does not have to go check up on His work to make sure what He made to happen, happen. He does, however, need to intervene on His own design specs to make the axe head sink.

Ah, I think I see where we differ. I believe God is actively causing the axe head to sink in water and I believe you would say that the axe head has the power to sink in water even in the event that God were to no longer exist.

An Axe head sinks because of gravity (gravity being the cause of the axe's sinking). The axe floating would be due to an extraordinary cause, a cause that.

This is consistent with my assumption above.
Sounds like Deism: A religious belief holding that God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs save miracles.
To me the continuous force of what we call gravity is constantly causal by God. If God were to disappear then all things including gravity would cease to exist. Job 34:14-15

Gee... I see @makesends is responding to our posts. He's a smarty. I content to use his post as my arguments would be similar.

Thanks for you insightful posts.

 

[Josheb]

I expect @Josheb means to end the last sentence above with, "...make the axe head [float]."

Yes, of course. Thanks for the correction .

To my view, and according to the philosophical Attributes of God, I have no recourse but to say there is no difference.....

....and if that which He made does not possess inherent causality and He alone is the sole cause of everything then the WCF is wrong; there are no secondary causes, and therefore again, no liberty or contingency thereof, and God is the author of sin.

He is intimately in it all and everywhere at once.

Causally?

Maybe more to the point, he, by creating timelessly, inhabits all fact intimately.

LOL False-cause fallacy. timeless creating does not necessarily dictate intimacy, causal or otherwise.

He need not pay more attention to this that to that.

Then He is not intimate in it all and everywhere at once.

He is not limited in his ability to handle it all at once.

Unless that is intended simply to "cover a base," that is non sequitur (no one has suggested any divine inability.

The reason he know the future is because he planned it —decreed it— and is accomplishing every detail of it, to include causation via means, and cause-and-effect, and via what we think of as design and intervention.

Which is what I posted.

Again, if God is the sole causal agent and no inherent causation exists due to His design, then there is no "causation via means." no cause-and-effect of anything other than Him, no secondary causation, no liberty or contingency thereof, God is the Author of sin, and the WCF is wrong.

Amen that!

I bought it and read it and lost interest. He sounds like a cheerleader for his 'string theory' or something. Like what I feel after hitting click-bait. But, ok, maybe I'll try again.

I encourage you to do so. The book is about field theory, of which both relativism and quantum mechanics are a part. If creation has 10+ dimensions, time is relative, matter and energy are simply variations on a common theme, time and space are simply two aspects of a singularity, and an object can in fact be in two places at once (at least on the sub-atomic level) then the Guy who made it all that way can certainly do all of that and more!

Just because he's a cheerleader does not mean he's wrong .