You Might Be A Determinist If…

This a complicated conversation. I enjoy conversations such as we are having. I will commit to answering your question according what I believe the Scriptures teach. Can we agree on using the Scriptures as the foundation of accepting evidence?

Yes. But with our understanding of scripture course.

I believe sin is inevitable. I believe when God created Adam (man), God did not provide circumstances to prevent "Adam" from sinning. In theology, we reference this condition as "peccable".

I would add God didn't prevent or cause Adam to sin. It was libertarian ie nonpredetermined.

1. Do you believe Adam was peccable?
2. If so, then wasn't Adam's sin inevitable?
3. Given these circumstances, how do you attribute culpability?

1. Yes, Adam was peccable.
2. Yes, Adam would inevitably have sinned if given an eternity to do so, clearly much sooner than later.
3. I would say that Adam had a probation period during which he could have passed but didn't. If the probation had passed and he didn't sin God would have preserved Him.

For a Scriptural reference to deal with these three questions....

Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

I would say after Adam, knowing revelation or at the onset of realizing natural revelation, all literally sinned and came under Rom 9:20-21. Notice that the man speaking although a victim of circumstance still libertarianly realized enough to question it.

But nonetheless all by natural revleation were guilty but could still seek God by natural revelation. Meanwhile God staved off His judgement until Christ.

Romans 1:20 (KJV) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Eventually the Gentiles were the greater seekers and accepted the gospel more that the Jews. But it is simultaneously *because* ie libertarianly they *sought* it by faith while the Jews didn't ie continued to adhere to the law.

Isaiah 11:10 (KJV) And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the *Gentiles seek*: and his rest shall be glorious.

Acts 13:42 (KJV) And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the *Gentiles besought* *that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

And again the *Gentiles sought* *because* ie libertarianly they sought it by faith while the Jews continued by law.

Romans 9:30-32 (KJV)
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? **Because* they *sought* it not by faith**, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

I realize there is more to this conversation than the three points above. I just ask that you deal with the three points above before we continue.
 
Joe was walking through town and notice a sign strategically placed on the walk way. It was a sign for an ice cream shop advertising 31 different flavors. He was not even thinking about ice cream until he inadvertently saw the sign and, because of his past experiences, it caused him to think of his favorite flavor Rocky Road. He thought “I wonder if they have Rocky Road” so he entered the shop to see. As he walked in the sweet smell of waffle cones brought back past memories. He scanned over all 31 flavors and noticed that there were many flavors he had tried in the past including some he liked and some he didn’t like. While he was scanning he found that they did in fact have his favorite Rocky Road. At this moment his mouth started to water and he really wanted to eat a waffle cone full of Rocky Road. Nothing outside of Joe was holding him back from choosing any other flavor but at this moment Rocky Road was his greatest desire…

Why would Joe not choose Rocky Road?

(You might just be a Determinist if you can’t answer this question without changing or adding a deterministic reason…)




Bonus question:
Would Joe have desired Rocky Road ice cream, at that same moment, if he never saw the sign in the first place?

CCP
 
Joe was walking through town and notice a sign strategically placed on the walk way. It was a sign for an ice cream shop advertising 31 different flavors. He was not even thinking about ice cream until he inadvertently saw the sign and, because of his past experiences, it caused him to think of his favorite flavor Rocky Road. He thought “I wonder if they have Rocky Road” so he entered the shop to see. As he walked in the sweet smell of waffle cones brought back past memories. He scanned over all 31 flavors and noticed that there were many flavors he had tried in the past including some he liked and some he didn’t like. While he was scanning he found that they did in fact have his favorite Rocky Road. At this moment his mouth started to water and he really wanted to eat a waffle cone full of Rocky Road. Nothing outside of Joe was holding him back from choosing any other flavor but at this moment Rocky Road was his greatest desire…

Why would Joe not choose Rocky Road?

(You might just be a Determinist if you can’t answer this question without changing or adding a deterministic reason…)



Bonus question:
Would Joe have desired Rocky Road ice cream, at that same moment, if he never saw the sign in the first place?

CCP

Nothing in that scenarios proves predetermination but merely local determination whether or not there was libertarianism involved.

Nor does it prove he didn't libertarianly leave cause and effect as is.

There was no command of God compelling libertarian choice.
 
I would add God didn't prevent or cause Adam to sin. It was libertarian ie nonpredetermined.

Sin entered this world through Adam but sin already existed. Satan coerced Eve to sin but Adam made a choice between Satan and God. Between Eve and God.

The question is, was Adam incapable of choosing any differently? This is a challenging question. My answer would be that Adam did not have the power to overcome his love for Eve. That leads to the question "why?" Why was Adam incapable of choosing God over God's creation?

1. Do you really believe that Adam had a real choice to abandon Eve?

In fact, this event is a prelude and allegory of Christ redeeming His Bride. I see purpose. Not purpose through sin but purpose for the Glory of God.

1. Yes, Adam was peccable.
2. Yes, Adam would inevitably have sinned if given an eternity to do so, clearly much sooner than later.
3. I would say that Adam had a probation period during which he could have passed but didn't. If the probation had passed and he didn't sin God would have preserved Him.

I believe this is compatible with what I said above.

I would say after Adam, knowing revelation or at the onset of realizing natural revelation, all literally sinned and came under Rom 9:20-21. Notice that the man speaking although a victim of circumstance still libertarianly realized enough to question it.

But nonetheless all by natural revleation were guilty but could still seek God by natural revelation. Meanwhile God staved off His judgement until Christ.

Romans 1:20 (KJV) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I don't believe "nature" named God. There are plenty of "gods" worshipped because of the witnesses within nature. Enter the Gospel.....

Eventually the Gentiles were the greater seekers and accepted the gospel more that the Jews. But it is simultaneously *because* ie libertarianly they *sought* it by faith while the Jews didn't ie continued to adhere to the law.

God took Divine action in destroying the wall that existed between Jew and Gentile. However, this Gentile world has long rejected Christianity to the point they are now just like the Jews were when Jesus "came to His own and His own received Him not".

Point being, the remnant is difficult to cast aside as being anything other than the Divine action in humanity.
 
Nothing in that scenarios proves predetermination but merely local determination whether or not there was libertarianism involved.

The "local determining" factors of "that scenario" were Pre-Determined by me.

And you have demonstrated that the result can not be otherwise without You Re-Authoring Joe's circumstances in order to bring about a different result.

You claim Joe to be libertarian but have only been able to demonstrate that he is Determined.

Nor does it prove he didn't libertarianly leave cause and effect as is.

And yet you have not demonstrated that a different "effect" is possible without YOU first re-authoring Joe's "causes"... proving pre-Determinism.

There was no command of God compelling libertarian choice.

Ok... and I did not "command" Joe to choose Rocky Road but I did create Joe and pre-Author the circumstances of his scenario such that it would result in his willing choice of Rocky Road. Joe was not "libertarian" from my pre-determined circumstances that brought about Joe's willing choice.

You assume Joe is "libertarian" from me but you have yet to demonstrate your claim.

...
 
The "local determining" factors of "that scenario" were Pre-Determined by me.

And you have demonstrated that the result can not be otherwise without You Re-Authoring Joe's circumstances in order to bring about a different result.

You claim Joe to be libertarian but have only been able to demonstrate that he is Determined.



And yet you have not demonstrated that a different "effect" is possible without YOU first re-authoring Joe's "causes"... proving pre-Determinism.



Ok... and I did not "command" Joe to choose Rocky Road but I did create Joe and pre-Author the circumstances of his scenario such that it would result in his willing choice of Rocky Road. Joe was not "libertarian" from my pre-determined circumstances that brought about Joe's willing choice.

You assume Joe is "libertarian" from me but you have yet to demonstrate your claim.

...
Is Joe allowed the Liberty of his Will as an established Secondary Cause?
 
Is Joe allowed the Liberty of his Will as an established Secondary Cause?

What do you mean “allowed”?

I did not “force” Joe, against his will, to choose Rocky Road. Joe willingly chose exactly as he wanted to.

 
Last edited:
As in not being able to choose?

How about this.

Son ..... what flavor of ice-cream do you want.

Dad .... I want Vanilla .....

Dad responds: sorry all we got is rocky road.
No, I mean being able to choose. The WCF says that the Liberty of the Will is established as a Secondary Cause...

I was wondering if he would allow this notion as a contributing factor to the scenario in his OP...
 
.
The "local determining" factors of "that scenario" were Pre-Determined by me.

And you have demonstrated that the result can not be otherwise without You Re-Authoring Joe's circumstances in order to bring about a different result.

You claim Joe to be libertarian but have only been able to demonstrate that he is Determined.



And yet you have not demonstrated that a different "effect" is possible without YOU first re-authoring Joe's "causes"... proving pre-Determinism.



Ok... and I did not "command" Joe to choose Rocky Road but I did create Joe and pre-Author the circumstances of his scenario such that it would result in his willing choice of Rocky Road. Joe was not "libertarian" from my pre-determined circumstances that brought about Joe's willing choice.

You assume Joe is "libertarian" from me but you have yet to demonstrate your claim.

Well since you personally meticulously predetermined this scenario, then it is predetermined. So it doesn't disprove libertarianism.
 
No, I mean being able to choose.

Creation has no “ability” apart from the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

The WCF says that the Liberty of the Will is established as a Secondary Cause...

Exactly, the created Will is not the Primary cause of anything.

I was wondering if he would allow this notion as a contributing factor to the scenario in his OP...

Joe’s “Will” is the Secondary cause in “the scenario in (my) OP”.

My determining of the continued existence of Joe and the circumstances surrounding Joe are the Primary cause of Joe’s Secondary cause.

 
Last edited:
Creation has no “ability” apart from the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

Exactly, the created Will is not the Primary cause of anything.

Joe’s “Will” is the Secondary cause in “the scenario in (my) OP”.

My determining of the continued existence of Joe and the circumstances surrounding Joe are the Primary cause of Joe’s Secondary cause.

Is God not the primary cause of all effects? Is God not at and directly in meticulous predeterminitive control of all points in time and space?
 
Well since you personally meticulously predetermined this scenario, then it is predetermined. So it doesn't disprove libertarianism.

And yet the fact that you now realize that Joe is my creation does not change what you previously intuitively thought when you assumed Joe was God’s creation.

When you were under the assumption that Joe was Gods creation, like you and I, you intuitively knew that Joe was not able to choose different than what the real world circumstances caused him to choose. You intuitively knew that you needed to Re-Author Joe’s circumstances in order to cause a different result… proving Determinism.

The fact still remains that, even in God’s creation, this circumstance would result in the same willing choice, and you intuitively know that in order to achieve a different result some part of the circumstance would need to change.

 
And yet the fact that you now realize that Joe is my creation does not change what you previously intuitively thought when you assumed Joe was God’s creation.

When you were under the assumption that Joe was Gods creation, like you and I, you intuitively knew that Joe was not able to choose different than what the real world circumstances caused him to choose. You intuitively knew that you needed to Re-Author Joe’s circumstances in order to cause a different result… proving Determinism.

The fact still remains that, even in God’s creation, this circumstance would result in the same willing choice, and you intuitively know that in order to achieve a different result some part of the circumstance would need to change.

Okay, I get it...

So if I created a character named Joe with the same circumstances, but allowed for the Liberty of his Will to be established as a true Secondary Cause, could Joe Choose on his own?
 
Okay, I get it...

So if I created a character named Joe with the same circumstances,…

If you merely “created” a Joe “with the same circumstances” then your character is no different than my character at this point.

…but allowed for the Liberty of his Will to be established as a true Secondary Cause,…

This is where it gets interesting. What does this really mean?

If I “allowed” my Joe “Liberty” of his “Will”, right now, then my Joe would do nothing because he is not an independent Power in and of himself. My Joe has no “ability” outside of my causative power. If my Joe is to continue to “live, move, and have his being” then I must determine to exert my power to move him into his next state of being.

If you want to imagine your creation of Joe differently then you can, but this would not be the way that I have revealed how my Joe works.

could Joe Choose on his own?

I can only answer for my Joe. My Joe does not have the power do anything “on his own” because my Joe cannot live, move, or have his being outside of my causative power.

If you want to imagine that your Joe can live, move, or have his being independent from your causative power then so be it, but consider the fact that your imagined creation is different than what I have revealed about my creation.

 
If you merely “created” a Joe “with the same circumstances” then your character is no different than my charac
I can only answer for my Joe. My Joe does not have the power do anything “on his own” because my Joe cannot live, move, or have his being outside of my causative power.

If you want to imagine that your Joe can live, move, or have his being independent from your causative power then so be it, but consider the fact that your imagined creation is different than what I have revealed about my creation.

What if the Secondary Causation of Joe's Will which is at Liberty, flows Concurrently with that of my Will without mixing? 2nd LBCF C2 P1...

After all, the Meaning of God and Joseph's brothers didn't mix when both Parties determined the same Act to sell Joseph into Slavery...
 
Back
Top