You Might Be A Determinist If…

[Sketo]

What if the Secondary Causation of Joe's Will which is at Liberty,…

What is the Primary “Causation of Joe’s Will”?

I believe this is where clarification needs to be made before we can move on.

…

 

[ReverendRV]

What is the Primary “Causation of Joe’s Will”?

I believe this is where clarification needs to be made before we can move on.

…

Okay...

The reason I say Joe's Will is at Liberty, is because of the Westminster Confession of Faith c2 p1; which says the Liberty of the Will is established as a Secondary Cause...

How do you explain that paragraph as applying, or not applying, to Joe? Is it something you Confess, or do not Confess? I Confess it...

 

[Sketo]

Okay...

The reason I say Joe's Will is at Liberty, is because of the Westminster Confession of Faith c2 p1; which says the Liberty of the Will is established as a Secondary Cause...

I don’t believe that “Liberty” here is referring to independence from the Primary, but rather “not being forced”.

If it were referring to “independence” from the Primary then it would not be called a “Secondary cause” but “a Primary cause” instead.

It would be stated as “the Liberty of the Will is established as a Primary Cause”.

The fact that there is no Secondary Willing apart from the Primary cause means that there is no other Primary power for God to “force” against. There is nothing independent from God for God to “allow”, therefore when the Secondary Will is in action it is always acting with “Liberty” in reference to “not being forced”.

How do you explain that paragraph as applying, or not applying, to Joe? Is it something you Confess, or do not Confess? I Confess it...

In my creation of Joe, and how I have revealed, that he can only continue to live, move, and have his being by my causative power, then if Joe was to move into his next state of being then it could only be by my Primary cause of Joe’s Secondary cause to that result.

Many falsely assume that my mere creation of Joe is the “Primary Cause” and then Joe becomes a “Primary cause” of all his own effects after creation…

(Like a row of dominos where the first one is moved by me but the second one is “moving” not by me)

… This is a common misunderstanding that does not consider the fact that Joe, after creation, has no ability, in and of himself, to be an independent Primary cause of anything apart from me causing him to be a Secondary cause.

…

 

[ReverendRV]

We're

I don’t believe that “Liberty” here is referring to independence from the Primary, but rather “not being forced”.

If it were referring to “independence” from the Primary then it would not be called a “Secondary cause” but “a Primary cause” instead.

It would be stated as “the Liberty of the Will is established as a Primary Cause”.

The fact that there is no Secondary Willing apart from the Primary cause means that there is no other Primary power for God to “force” against. There is nothing independent from God for God to “allow”, therefore when the Secondary Will is in action it is always acting with “Liberty” in reference to “not being forced”.



In my creation of Joe, and how I have revealed, that he can only continue to live, move, and have his being by my causative power, then if Joe was to move into his next state of being then it could only be by my Primary cause of Joe’s Secondary cause to that result.

Many falsely assume that my mere creation of Joe is the “Primary Cause” and then Joe becomes a “Primary cause” of all his own effects after creation…

(Like a row of dominos where the first one is moved by me but the second one is “moving” not by me)

… This is a common misunderstanding that does not consider the fact that Joe, after creation, has no ability, in and of himself, to be an independent Primary cause of anything apart from me causing him to be a Secondary cause.

…

We're close...

Regarding Joe, can we agree one thing you might say to him is that "You meant this for Evil, but I meant it for Good; for the saving of many lives"? Not regarding Icecream, but perhaps in selling his brother into Slavery. If we can't change the scenario for your Joe, let's change it for my Joe; and I said that to him...

Would Joe's Willful Meaning of Evil have been at Liberty as a Secondary Cause?

 

[Sketo]

We're

We're close...

Regarding Joe, can we agree one thing you might say to him is that "You meant this for Evil, but I meant it for Good;…

Not a problem. We can agree that the meaning of the Ultimate result was determined by God for Good and it included the Secondary causative means to an immediate result that can be described as an Evil.

…for the saving of many lives"? Not regarding Icecream, but perhaps in selling his brother into Slavery.

Yes God meant it for Good and the brothers meant it for a different end that can be labeled as evil.

You would agree that the mere act of choosing Rocky Road, in and of itself, can not be described as Evil… but if I had previously included the command: “Joe, Thou shalt not choose Rocky Road flavor ice cream” in the scenario, then the act of choosing Rocky Road ice cream would have been determined by me as an Evil act. Joe now knows that it is against me if he chooses Rocky Road.

If we can't change the scenario for your Joe, let's change it for my Joe; and I said that to him...

Would Joe's Willful Meaning of Evil have been at Liberty as a Secondary Cause?

Apart from the addition of the command “thou shalt not choose Rocky Road” there is no difference in our scenarios.

In my creation, as is, there is no possible action that Joe can take that can be described as Evil because there is no command “thou shalt not”.

If you created Joe in the exact same scenario, but also added the law “thou shalt not…”, then you have not only determined that Joe would choose Rocky Road but also determined that that act would be described as evil.

Now the only thing missing from your scenario is your Ultimate Good purpose as to why you determined Joe, as the Secondary cause, to commit the act that you previously commanded him not to.

…

 

[Kampioen]

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.

In meticulous predetermination that would be the case.

It could be that you meant to say his favorite was vanilla but had a lapse of thought and changed it to rocky road and thus the story ended up predetermined differently than you intended.

In God's case He created an open future to interactionally write some of the story, and thus it may have ended up differently than God intended. Of course God foreknows an open future but predetermined not to change it.

 

[ReverendRV]

Not a problem. We can agree that the meaning of the Ultimate result was determined by God for Good and it included the Secondary causative means to an immediate result that can be described as an Evil.



Yes God meant it for Good and the brothers meant it for a different end that can be labeled as evil.

You would agree that the mere act of choosing Rocky Road, in and of itself, can not be described as Evil… but if I had previously included the command: “Joe, Thou shalt not choose Rocky Road flavor ice cream” in the scenario, then the act of choosing Rocky Road ice cream would have been determined by me as an Evil act. Joe now knows that it is against me if he chooses Rocky Road.



Apart from the addition of the command “thou shalt not choose Rocky Road” there is no difference in our scenarios.

In my creation, as is, there is no possible action that Joe can take that can be described as Evil because there is no command “thou shalt not”.

If you created Joe in the exact same scenario, but also added the law “thou shalt not…”, then you have not only determined that Joe would choose Rocky Road but also determined that that act would be described as evil.

Now the only thing missing from your scenario is your Ultimate Good purpose as to why you determined Joe, as the Secondary cause, to commit the act that you previously commanded him not to.

…

Oh I agree that the scenario has to be altered for another decision to be made. My point is that the WCF says we are at Liberty, so unless you disagree and say otherwise; I think you disagree Joe is at Liberty to alter it. Your Joe is impervious to all other influences; say for instance the appeal of a Hamburger Joint...

This reminds me of the "Cosmic Cheeseburger" point of Quantum Theory. ~ A man wants pizza. On his way he passes the Hamburger joint and now wants a Cheeseburger. He meets a woman there; long story short, they will get married. It's basically a discussion over Alternate Realities because of alternate decisions made...

I would agree with the Confession that the Will is at Liberty to Cause an uncoerced (by God) change of Mind; of course God would agree to the change of Mind; just as he agreed with the uncoerced names Adam gave to the animals...

"Adam, what will you name this Elephant?"

 

[His clay]

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?

I think that sketo is addressing the issue very well. However, I'll add my 2 cents anyway. The words, "Choose on his own," is problematic because it abundantly looks like autonomy. Autonomy refers to self-sufficiency/independence from God. If you are saying that your character is autonomous from God, and that is what you mean by, "Choose on his own," then you have lost me. The Bible strongly connects the autonomous mindset to the fall itself, where Eve sought to set up her own mind as an independent/self-sufficient judge over God's word and the serpent's word. The book of Ecclesiastes points out the folly of epistemological autonomy; the textual indicators of this is the heavy usage of the first person (e.g. I did this, I did that, etc). Kings like Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar both demonstrated thinking that pointed to their prideful assumption of metaphysical autonomy, and God judged their pride.

Sketo has already demonstrated that metaphysical autonomy is impossible in God's universe, since God Himself is the sustaining force behind the existence of all things. And to say that God sustains that which is independent of Him is to engage in a contradiction.

Hence, if your, "Choose on his own," comment is indicating autonomy from God, then I have to side with scripture against an all-to-often sinful proclivity for thinking. Everything hinges upon the freight you place into the words, "choose on his own." You may very well be freighting the words with something else, but I'm addressing what is probably the most common understanding of the words. What do you mean by "Choose on his own"?

 

[ReverendRV]

I think that sketo is addressing the issue very well. However, I'll add my 2 cents anyway. The words, "Choose on his own," is problematic because it abundantly looks like autonomy. Autonomy refers to self-sufficiency/independence from God. If you are saying that your character is autonomous from God, and that is what you mean by, "Choose on his own," then you have lost me. The Bible strongly connects the autonomous mindset to the fall itself, where Eve sought to set up her own mind as an independent/self-sufficient judge over God's word and the serpent's word. The book of Ecclesiastes points out the folly of epistemological autonomy; the textual indicators of this is the heavy usage of the first person (e.g. I did this, I did that, etc). Kings like Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar both demonstrated thinking that pointed to their prideful assumption of metaphysical autonomy, and God judged their pride.

Sketo has already demonstrated that metaphysical autonomy is impossible in God's universe, since God Himself is the sustaining force behind the existence of all things. And to say that God sustains that which is independent of Him is to engage in a contradiction.

Hence, if your, "Choose on his own," comment is indicating autonomy from God, then I have to side with scripture against an all-to-often sinful proclivity for thinking. Everything hinges upon the freight you place into the words, "choose on his own." You may very well be freighting the words with something else, but I'm addressing what is probably the most common understanding of the words. What do you mean by "Choose on his own"?

You're right, he is doing a great job...

Basically I am operating from the 2nd LBCF c2 p1, where it says that the Liberty of the Will is established as a Secondary Cause. I think we all agree that Secondary Causation is not divorced from Primary Causation; but is there any true 'Liberty' for the Will within the Primary Causation, as the Founders implied?

What would you say the Liberty of the Will is; IE what did they mean us to understand? Either they were wrong to Confess this, or they meant it to be the truth of the matter in some sort of sense which needs to be clarified. I think the way Arminius described God's Providence by saying the Will of God and the Will of Man flow Concurrently, can match with what the Confession says there about the Will...

You keep mentioning Autonomy; but what about Agency? Is their a modicum of Autonomy in Secondary Agency? If not, what exactly is Agency then?

 

[Kampioen]

I think that sketo is addressing the issue very well. However, I'll add my 2 cents anyway. The words, "Choose on his own," is problematic because it abundantly looks like autonomy. Autonomy refers to self-sufficiency/independence from God. If you are saying that your character is autonomous from God, and that is what you mean by, "Choose on his own," then you have lost me. The Bible strongly connects the autonomous mindset to the fall itself, where Eve sought to set up her own mind as an independent/self-sufficient judge over God's word and the serpent's word. The book of Ecclesiastes points out the folly of epistemological autonomy; the textual indicators of this is the heavy usage of the first person (e.g. I did this, I did that, etc). Kings like Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar both demonstrated thinking that pointed to their prideful assumption of metaphysical autonomy, and God judged their pride.

Sketo has already demonstrated that metaphysical autonomy is impossible in God's universe, since God Himself is the sustaining force behind the existence of all things. And to say that God sustains that which is independent of Him is to engage in a contradiction.

Hence, if your, "Choose on his own," comment is indicating autonomy from God, then I have to side with scripture against an all-to-often sinful proclivity for thinking. Everything hinges upon the freight you place into the words, "choose on his own." You may very well be freighting the words with something else, but I'm addressing what is probably the most common understanding of the words. What do you mean by "Choose on his own"?

People have multiple autonomous libertarian choices and paths, right and wrong within the borders of capability designed by God. Thus not all things will work exactly the way God intended. But God will recompense and bring things back into His plan. And He will use people's evil intent by funnelling them into particular directions in order to accomplish His ultimate goal.

God does have meticulous foreknowledge of an open future but doesn't meticulously predeterminitively control events.

 

[Sketo]

Basically I am operating from the 2nd LBCF c2 p1, where it says that the Liberty of the Will is established as a Secondary Cause. I think we all agree that Secondary Causation is not divorced from Primary Causation; but is there any true 'Liberty' for the Will within the Primary Causation, as the Founders implied?

If we properly understand the original reference point of those who used these terms then I believe everyone would be in agreement. We would all agree that 1689 is quite a long time from 2022. A lot could change in 333 years especially meanings of words and phrases. I believe this is the key to understanding what they meant by “Liberty”.

I believe that 333 years ago people read their Bible more than they searched the internet to get their theological understanding. I also believe that more Christian’s knew what it really meant when the Bible said things like “He upholds the universe by the word of his power” and “in him all things hold together” and “in him we live, move, and have our being”. If these foundational truths were taught today no one would ignorantly be lead to believe that we are at “Liberty” in reference to the “Primary cause” God.

What would you say the Liberty of the Will is; IE what did they mean us to understand? Either they were wrong to Confess this, or they meant it to be the truth of the matter in some sort of sense which needs to be clarified.

I believe the opposition 333 years ago was in reference to the phrase “Secondary Cause”. You can’t have a secondary cause without a primary cause so this would naturally spark a problem in those who falsely assume man’s will to also be a primary cause. They objected with false assumptions such as “that means we are forced against our will” but this is due to a false deistic presupposition to begin with.

If Deism were true, which it is not, then the “force” objection would have a foothold in the argument against the Reformers clam that man’s will is a “Secondary cause”. Keep in mind the objectors of that day needed man’s will to be a “Primary cause”.

So in order for the Reformers of that time to distance themselves from those heretical objections but also maintain their original claim “Secondary cause” they knew they had to word it such that it does not allow for the “forced against your (dualistic) will” objection to stick.

Now the LBC contains both “Secondary cause” and “Liberty of the Will”.

Today, 333 years later, the heresy of Deism and Dualism is still lingering and being taught to those who get there theology from the internet instead of scripture. They are taught that the word “Liberty” can only have one reference point. They still teach that man’s Will is at Liberty from the “Primary cause” so when they look at the LBCF or the WCF they automatically see contradiction.

So, is it a contradiction to place “Liberty of the Will” and “Secondary cause” in the same sentence? NO, because the LBCF and the WCF have a different reference point in mind when they use the word “Liberty”. They are not referring to the “Primary cause” but to the “Forced against your will” objection. They are fighting against the Dualistic presuppositions of their time.

“Force” assumes that there is another “Primary power” in opposition to God’s power. “Force” assumes that if God wants something to come to pass he must either “allow” that other power to do… or exert his power to “force” against it. This is the heresy of Deism and Dualism still lingering today. Stop feeding it!

If you read your Bible and get your foundational understanding from verses such as Hebrews 1:3, Acts 17:28, Colossians 1:17, Ephesians 1:11 you would know that all of creation is at best a “Secondary Cause” and you would also know that there is no other “Primary power” in creation that God needs to “force against” in order to accomplish his will.

 

[ReverendRV]

So, is it a contradiction to place “Liberty of the Will” and “Secondary cause” in the same sentence? NO, because the LBCF and the WCF have a different reference point in mind when they use the word “Liberty”. They are referring to the “Forced against your will” objection, not the “Primary cause”. They are fighting against the Dualistic presuppositions of their time.

We are in agreement here...

The husband is the head of his wife, and Christ is the Head of the husband. The Husband and the wife want to go to the same place for vacation; and Jesus this for them. I know this is a vague example, but the husband is not making up his wife's Mind for her, and Jesus isn't making up the husband's Mind for him. It sounds like you agree there is a modicum of Liberty for Secondary Causation within the Primary Causation...

 

[guest1]

Sorry but in a marriage the relationship in not one of creature/Creator but mutual. So that analogy doesn't fly. In Calvinism one cannot compare marriage to God . Marriage in not determinism by one party to the other, its mutual- synergism, not monergism.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Sketo]

…but the husband is not making up his wife's Mind for her, and Jesus isn't making up the husband's Mind for him. It sounds like you agree there is a modicum of Liberty for Secondary Causation within the Primary Causation...

I believe I’m beginning to see where our difference in understanding is.

I believe you and I would agree that the wife “making up their mind” is “Secondary” but I believe we have a different understanding on what the “Primary cause” is.

What would be the “Primary cause” of the wife “making up her mind”?

…

 

[ReverendRV]

I believe I’m beginning to see where our difference in understanding is.

I believe you and I would agree that the wife “making up their mind” is “Secondary” but I believe we have a different understanding on what the “Primary cause” is.

What would be the “Primary cause” of the wife “making up her mind”?

…

It's a vague analogy which falls short; but it achieved our getting closer to understanding each other...

Can we use the example of God being in the Garden with Adam while Adam named the animals? You and I agreed that it isn't a contradiction to place “Liberty of the Will” and “Secondary cause” in the same sentence, it's because in some true sense Adam had Liberty of the Will as a Secondary Cause...

 

[Sketo]

It's a vague analogy which falls short; but it achieved our getting closer to understanding each other...

Can we use the example of God being in the Garden with Adam while Adam named the animals? When you and I agreed that it isn't a contradiction to place “Liberty of the Will” and “Secondary cause” in the same sentence, it's because in some true sense Adam had Liberty of the Will as a Secondary Cause...

Yes we can agree Adam was not “forced” to name the animals.

Now can you answer:

I believe I’m beginning to see where our difference in understanding is.

I believe you and I would agree that the wife “making up their mind” is “Secondary” but I believe we have a different understanding on what the “Primary cause” is.

What would be the “Primary cause” of the wife “making up her mind”?

 

[ReverendRV]

Yes we can agree Adam was not “forced” to name the animals.

Now can you answer:

The Primary Cause of the wife making up her Mind is the Primary Cause of God; but without God offering any violence to her Will...

This is the main reason that people reject Providence, because they cannot divorce violence from Primary Causation...

 

[Sketo]

The Primary Cause of the wife making up her Mind is the Primary Cause of God; but without offering any violence...

I sense you hold to multiple “primary” causes… which still hints at a form of Deism.

You seem to believe that God is the “Primary” cause, then man become a “Second (primary) cause” of a “Third (primary) cause”…

This becomes confusing because the LBCF only has God as the Primary and creature as the Secondary. If all things are only Secondary, in reference to God, then there is no room for a “Tertiary cause” that God could be disconnected from. There is only “Secondary causes” in reference to God.

The difference can be seen in the dominos example.

View #1 understands God as the “first or primary” cause by pushing the “first or primary” domino but the “second” domino falling is not directly caused by God, but caused by the first “primary” domino (not God ), the third is caused by the second “primary” domino (not God directly), the forth is caused by the third “primary” domino (not God directly), etc.. In this view there is only a metaphysical connection between God and the first domino but not a metaphysical connection with the second, third, forth, etc. This is a Deistic view.

View #2 understands God as the “Primary cause” of every dominos moving, and every dominos interaction with the next is the God determined “Secondary cause” of the next domino’s falling. There is no metaphysical disconnect between God and any domino in this view. God is working all dominos in this view… not just the first domino.

For a visual understanding of View #2 please consider…

 

[Kampioen]

I sense you hold to multiple “primary” causes… which still hints at a form of Deism.

You seem to believe that God is the “Primary” cause, then man become a “Second (primary) cause” of a “Third (primary) cause”…

Man is a libertarian primary cause by God's idea ie man has zero omni-attributes and there is nothing outside of and disconnected from God, which makes it not deism.

This becomes confusing because the LBCF only has God as the Primary and creature as the Secondary. If all things are only Secondary, in reference to God, then there is no room for a “Tertiary cause” that God could be disconnected from. There is only “Secondary causes” in reference to God.

The difference can be seen in the dominos example.

View #1 understands God as the “first or primary” cause by pushing the “first or primary” domino but the “second” domino falling is not directly caused by God, but caused by the first “primary” domino (not God ), the third is caused by the second “primary” domino (not God directly), the forth is caused by the third “primary” domino (not God directly), etc.. In this view there is only a metaphysical connection between God and the first domino but not a metaphysical connection with the second, third, forth, etc. This is a Deistic view.

I agree the above is deism. They make the dominos operate independently outside of God ie a "Tertiary cause" as you put it. Many predeteminists believe this. Although a non-tertiary version of this ie "non-tertiary synergistic (libertarian) compatibilism" would not be deist.

View #2 understands God as the “Primary cause” of every dominos moving, and every dominos interaction with the next is the God determined “Secondary cause” of the next domino’s falling. There is no metaphysical disconnect between God and any domino in this view. God is working all dominos in this view… not just the first domino.

Although that in and of itself is not deism I would say the philosophic obligation that requires this … ie creates and limits God's characteristics … eg fates God to having no other choice but to give us no other choice … ie taking away God's libertarianism, … is deism.

 

[Sketo]

Although that in and of itself is not deism I would say the philosophic obligation that requires this … ie creates and limits God's characteristics … eg fates God to having no other choice but to give us no other choice … ie taking away God's libertarianism, … is deism.

Why would you assume an Author of a book “has no other choice but to give his characters no other choice”? This is just nonsense.

Nothing forced God to determine the choices that he gave you, just like nothing forced me to give Joe the choice I gave him.

Actually it’s Kampioen’s view that forces God to have to “deal with the hand he’s been dealt”…

Click here to see how “libertarianism” makes God a robot.

…