Post by Dr.Weismann on Dec 1, 2013 12:55:56 GMT 3
Excerpts from a debate where a Calvinist ascribes actions that are contrary to God's intended purposes and decrees to secondary causes:
Dr Kenny Rhodes< "This brings me to the point of Divine simplicity. God's will, knowledge and plan are not things that are contingencies to Him. Before creation it was all "known, planned and willed" in Him. This is classic theism. God does not learn, or adjust himself... These are clearly anthropomorphic statements in God's relation to humans. God actualized all things "knowing and planning" that evil would happen (via 2nd causes), some created beings would go to hell, and others to life. Anything less and he is not God. It should bring great comfort that he had it all "willed, known and planned" before one thing came to pass.
I know that classic theism is being denied these days but the nature of God understood from Scripture and reason demands that: "ALL things are FROM Him...
THROUGH Him and...
TO Him"
It cannot be any other way or you don't have God, you just have a being like unto ourselves that learns, has to work in time and does not know the saved as certain as to have there names written down before time began. Why this is so objected to is just beyond me, I worship a God who is, "the One who is," "the Being One," the "I Am" (Ex 3:14)."
Dr Elisha Weismann<<< "For the life of me I'll never figure out why-other than willful ignorance-anyone that claims that if God predermined and pre-planned "ALL" things, that doesn't include secondary causes. It is an explicit contradiction to claim that God is the primary cause of all desires, thoughts, wills and events, but then claim that secondary causes are independent events when the proximate cause of the matter is the first caused cause. If secondary causes maintained their own responsibility and loyalty to first causes, they would never alter their course, but yet the Bible is full of examples of God claiming that something would happen that DID NOT HAPPEN.
1 Samuel 23:11-14, David inquires of the LORD if Saul will come down. God said HE WILL come down. Saul did NOT. He "FORBEAR".
Jeremiah 32:35 God specifically states that He did not cause Israel to sin, nor did the actions which they committed even come to His mind. That would be a completely falsehood if their actions were determined before eternity, and it could not be said that it never came to God's mind.
Jonah 3:8-11, God said He repented of the evil that He SAID HE WOULD DO. God's actions were tailored to the actions of the Ninevites. God gave them 2 choices, sin and die, or repent and live. If all things are determined, then "halting between 2 opinions" (1 Kings 18:21) is a futile exercise because both all causes and all effects are already determined to come to pass which therefore makes all events the product of ONE first caused cause.
Ezekiel 3:18-22, God holds the watchmen accountable for failing to warn the wicked, and the death of the wicked is the result of the watchmen's failure to warn, not any eternal decree. If the sinner dying in his sin is the result of an eternal decree, then God is holding someone else accountable for what He caused. Furthermore, that sinner can not be said to have been merely "passed over" because God did NOT pass him over in demanding that the warning be OFFERED TO HIM. You don't offer the gospel to someone that you "passed over" from eternity, and then hold the watchmen accountable for it. Not only that, but Ezekiel 3 shows that the sinner COULD HAVE been saved were it not for the watchmen's faiilure, and for Calvinism to be consistent, there can not be ANY "COULD HAVES" because you are either elect or you are not.
Calvinism doesn't get to escape these conundrums by simply introducing contradictory rhetoric. Secondary causes are only valid if the subject has a libertarian free will and has a bona fide abillity and options to choose between A and to choose NOT A, and those choices are capable of being made without any external or internal compulsions including a pre-tailored will that does not actually have the ability to do any good. Calvinism can not claim compatibilist freedom and then blame events that don't go God's way on secondary causes. In order for compatiblism to be a valid premise for defining freedom, it must be actualized and implemented consistently at all times and places. It can not give way to libertarian free will when it is convenient for Calvinism to explain why an event occurred that shows God reacting negatively to the decisions His creatures made against His imperatives.
"
Dr Kenny Rhodes<<< " I am actually quite surprised that a man of your learning does not get the philosophical notion of dual causality, a Prime Mover and secondary causes as set forth by Aristotle and Aquinas.
Also, the fact that God has knowledge of "possible" counterfactuals is not an argument against my position. It's very clear that The Lord has knowledge of what could be or "what if" knowledge.
Even Molinism cannot get out of the implications of God creating a world through his middle knowledge (knowledge of counterfactuals) and actualizing all events according to his will to force the compliance of libertarian causes, which would still be secondary causes. God's absolute will "wins" every time."
Dr Elisha Weismann<<< "Yes, I do get it, but because I disagree with an athiestic Greek philosopher such as Aristotle, and a Roman Catholic apologist such as Aquinas (who actually opposes your view on free will, " Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. "), or any of the Gnostic philosophers notorious for their heretical dualism. I am free to reject their philosophical presumptions. There are much better CHRISTIAN philosophers. And as I've said before, if you are going to pick authorities in attempt to bolster your argument, make sure they actually AGREE with you first
And whether God has knowledge of "possible" counterfactuals is non sequitur because that wasn't your premise. Your argument is that God determines events from eternity. That necessarily involves dominion over all events including secondary causes and counterfactuals. Of course God has knowledge of the events whether or not He caused them, or if they event was a result of free choice, but that's not the issue.
Your description of Molonism is merely God having a theological cosmic chess match with himself. Just because God knows all of the moves doesn't mean that He forces the opponent to make a choice. Nevertheless, there is a big difference in God causing external circumstances that persuade a person to make a choice between 2 or more options as well as the ability to make a BETTER choice between 2 options that are not wrong options either way, and God determining all actions and then calling them free choices. However, if all of these events are determined by God's foreknowledge, you have turned foreknowledge itself into its own god with its own independent powers of sovereignty that God merely has access to and can utilize at His whim and caprice. Such a notion also binds God and makes Him a slave to what He foreknows, instead of God simply foreknowing because He has the ability to know of events before they happen.
And to "force the compliance of libertarian causes" is a complete contradiction in terms. If ANY action can be forced, it is not truly a libertarian act. God organizing EXTERNAL events to bring about His desired outcome do not affect the INTERNAL choices that individuals are permitted to make of their own volition. God can limit the AVAILABLE CHOICES but does not limit the ABILITY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THEM, and the Scriptures are clear that this is in fact the case with all of the imperatives given to "choose life", "choose this day whom ye will serve", "how long halt ye between two opinions", "turn ye unto me and I will turn to you (Zech 1:3).
Isaiah 10 is not an example that proves your point. Nehemiah 9:30 makes it clear that it was ALWAYS because of Israels rebellion that they were delivered into the hand of the people of the lands. Thus the nations used against Israel were not secondary causes, they were God's reaction to Israel's disobedience. And even when God gave authority to another nation or king, He set boundaries of what they were permitted to do to Israel as He set boundaries with Satan when he tempted Job. When those kings and nations crossed the line, God punished them for their actions. If God controlled these nations through secondary causes, then not only would the initial actions taken against Israel have been determined, but also the malfeasance they displayed against Israel would have been determined as well which means God punished them for doing exactly what He wanted them to do which is absurd in the face of the imperatives given to them viz boundaries.
In Isaiah 10, God said he would command against Assyria a CHARGE. It doesn't say that God MAKES THEM attack Assyria. God clearly shows that the actions that bring about the wrath of God upon Assyria is due to the kings heart and idolatry (vs 10-13), and because they oppressed the poor and widow (vs 2-3). There's not one thing in Isaiah 10 that proves that because God reacts to the haughtiness of a proud king and *stirs up* (not forces actions) antagonistic nations, that He forces individual men to make decisions contrary to their own wills.
Dr Kenny Rhodes< "This brings me to the point of Divine simplicity. God's will, knowledge and plan are not things that are contingencies to Him. Before creation it was all "known, planned and willed" in Him. This is classic theism. God does not learn, or adjust himself... These are clearly anthropomorphic statements in God's relation to humans. God actualized all things "knowing and planning" that evil would happen (via 2nd causes), some created beings would go to hell, and others to life. Anything less and he is not God. It should bring great comfort that he had it all "willed, known and planned" before one thing came to pass.
I know that classic theism is being denied these days but the nature of God understood from Scripture and reason demands that: "ALL things are FROM Him...
THROUGH Him and...
TO Him"
It cannot be any other way or you don't have God, you just have a being like unto ourselves that learns, has to work in time and does not know the saved as certain as to have there names written down before time began. Why this is so objected to is just beyond me, I worship a God who is, "the One who is," "the Being One," the "I Am" (Ex 3:14)."
Dr Elisha Weismann<<< "For the life of me I'll never figure out why-other than willful ignorance-anyone that claims that if God predermined and pre-planned "ALL" things, that doesn't include secondary causes. It is an explicit contradiction to claim that God is the primary cause of all desires, thoughts, wills and events, but then claim that secondary causes are independent events when the proximate cause of the matter is the first caused cause. If secondary causes maintained their own responsibility and loyalty to first causes, they would never alter their course, but yet the Bible is full of examples of God claiming that something would happen that DID NOT HAPPEN.
1 Samuel 23:11-14, David inquires of the LORD if Saul will come down. God said HE WILL come down. Saul did NOT. He "FORBEAR".
Jeremiah 32:35 God specifically states that He did not cause Israel to sin, nor did the actions which they committed even come to His mind. That would be a completely falsehood if their actions were determined before eternity, and it could not be said that it never came to God's mind.
Jonah 3:8-11, God said He repented of the evil that He SAID HE WOULD DO. God's actions were tailored to the actions of the Ninevites. God gave them 2 choices, sin and die, or repent and live. If all things are determined, then "halting between 2 opinions" (1 Kings 18:21) is a futile exercise because both all causes and all effects are already determined to come to pass which therefore makes all events the product of ONE first caused cause.
Ezekiel 3:18-22, God holds the watchmen accountable for failing to warn the wicked, and the death of the wicked is the result of the watchmen's failure to warn, not any eternal decree. If the sinner dying in his sin is the result of an eternal decree, then God is holding someone else accountable for what He caused. Furthermore, that sinner can not be said to have been merely "passed over" because God did NOT pass him over in demanding that the warning be OFFERED TO HIM. You don't offer the gospel to someone that you "passed over" from eternity, and then hold the watchmen accountable for it. Not only that, but Ezekiel 3 shows that the sinner COULD HAVE been saved were it not for the watchmen's faiilure, and for Calvinism to be consistent, there can not be ANY "COULD HAVES" because you are either elect or you are not.
Calvinism doesn't get to escape these conundrums by simply introducing contradictory rhetoric. Secondary causes are only valid if the subject has a libertarian free will and has a bona fide abillity and options to choose between A and to choose NOT A, and those choices are capable of being made without any external or internal compulsions including a pre-tailored will that does not actually have the ability to do any good. Calvinism can not claim compatibilist freedom and then blame events that don't go God's way on secondary causes. In order for compatiblism to be a valid premise for defining freedom, it must be actualized and implemented consistently at all times and places. It can not give way to libertarian free will when it is convenient for Calvinism to explain why an event occurred that shows God reacting negatively to the decisions His creatures made against His imperatives.
"
Dr Kenny Rhodes<<< " I am actually quite surprised that a man of your learning does not get the philosophical notion of dual causality, a Prime Mover and secondary causes as set forth by Aristotle and Aquinas.
Also, the fact that God has knowledge of "possible" counterfactuals is not an argument against my position. It's very clear that The Lord has knowledge of what could be or "what if" knowledge.
Even Molinism cannot get out of the implications of God creating a world through his middle knowledge (knowledge of counterfactuals) and actualizing all events according to his will to force the compliance of libertarian causes, which would still be secondary causes. God's absolute will "wins" every time."
Dr Elisha Weismann<<< "Yes, I do get it, but because I disagree with an athiestic Greek philosopher such as Aristotle, and a Roman Catholic apologist such as Aquinas (who actually opposes your view on free will, " Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. "), or any of the Gnostic philosophers notorious for their heretical dualism. I am free to reject their philosophical presumptions. There are much better CHRISTIAN philosophers. And as I've said before, if you are going to pick authorities in attempt to bolster your argument, make sure they actually AGREE with you first
And whether God has knowledge of "possible" counterfactuals is non sequitur because that wasn't your premise. Your argument is that God determines events from eternity. That necessarily involves dominion over all events including secondary causes and counterfactuals. Of course God has knowledge of the events whether or not He caused them, or if they event was a result of free choice, but that's not the issue.
Your description of Molonism is merely God having a theological cosmic chess match with himself. Just because God knows all of the moves doesn't mean that He forces the opponent to make a choice. Nevertheless, there is a big difference in God causing external circumstances that persuade a person to make a choice between 2 or more options as well as the ability to make a BETTER choice between 2 options that are not wrong options either way, and God determining all actions and then calling them free choices. However, if all of these events are determined by God's foreknowledge, you have turned foreknowledge itself into its own god with its own independent powers of sovereignty that God merely has access to and can utilize at His whim and caprice. Such a notion also binds God and makes Him a slave to what He foreknows, instead of God simply foreknowing because He has the ability to know of events before they happen.
And to "force the compliance of libertarian causes" is a complete contradiction in terms. If ANY action can be forced, it is not truly a libertarian act. God organizing EXTERNAL events to bring about His desired outcome do not affect the INTERNAL choices that individuals are permitted to make of their own volition. God can limit the AVAILABLE CHOICES but does not limit the ABILITY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THEM, and the Scriptures are clear that this is in fact the case with all of the imperatives given to "choose life", "choose this day whom ye will serve", "how long halt ye between two opinions", "turn ye unto me and I will turn to you (Zech 1:3).
Isaiah 10 is not an example that proves your point. Nehemiah 9:30 makes it clear that it was ALWAYS because of Israels rebellion that they were delivered into the hand of the people of the lands. Thus the nations used against Israel were not secondary causes, they were God's reaction to Israel's disobedience. And even when God gave authority to another nation or king, He set boundaries of what they were permitted to do to Israel as He set boundaries with Satan when he tempted Job. When those kings and nations crossed the line, God punished them for their actions. If God controlled these nations through secondary causes, then not only would the initial actions taken against Israel have been determined, but also the malfeasance they displayed against Israel would have been determined as well which means God punished them for doing exactly what He wanted them to do which is absurd in the face of the imperatives given to them viz boundaries.
In Isaiah 10, God said he would command against Assyria a CHARGE. It doesn't say that God MAKES THEM attack Assyria. God clearly shows that the actions that bring about the wrath of God upon Assyria is due to the kings heart and idolatry (vs 10-13), and because they oppressed the poor and widow (vs 2-3). There's not one thing in Isaiah 10 that proves that because God reacts to the haughtiness of a proud king and *stirs up* (not forces actions) antagonistic nations, that He forces individual men to make decisions contrary to their own wills.