Primary & Secondary Causes

[Nolan]

There are some extreme Calvinist theologians out there who will use philosophical reasoning to explain away the reasons as to why God can't possibly be the author of sin while, at the same time, creating a world where man would have no choice but to sin. They use examples of what they call "primary" and "secondary" causes.

It goes something like this...

The primary cause, initiated by God, was to slay the Lamb before the foundation of the world. The purpose of this is to glorify Himself by redeeming a particular people, His sheep. By necessity, God also had to create a world where man had no choice but to sin in order for His sheep to be redeemed. The act of sin by man then becomes the secondary cause and this somehow lets God off the hook as the author of evil.

That logic simply doesn't follow and here is why...

Imagine Person A mails a bomb to Person B. It is inevitable that Person B will receive the package and open it, triggering an explosion that results in Person B's death. The primary cause in this case is when Person A dropped off the package at the mail carrier. The secondary cause is when Person B opened the package. In a court of law, could Person A blame Person B for opening the package? No, in every scenario Person A would be held responsible for Person B's death.

This is the logical conclusion of extreme Calvinism when you break it all down.

 

[Clete]

There are some extreme Calvinist theologians out there who will use philosophical reasoning to explain away the reasons as to why God can't possibly be the author of sin while, at the same time, creating a world where man would have no choice but to sin. They use examples of what they call "primary" and "secondary" causes.

It goes something like this...

The primary cause, initiated by God, was to slay the Lamb before the foundation of the world. The purpose of this is to glorify Himself by redeeming a particular people, His sheep. By necessity, God also had to create a world where man had no choice but to sin in order for His sheep to be redeemed. The act of sin by man then becomes the secondary cause and this somehow lets God off the hook as the author of evil.

That logic simply doesn't follow and here is why...

Imagine Person A mails a bomb to Person B. It is inevitable that Person B will receive the package and open it, triggering an explosion that results in Person B's death. The primary cause in this case is when Person A dropped off the package at the mail carrier. The secondary cause is when Person B opened the package. In a court of law, could Person A blame Person B for opening the package? No, in every scenario, Person A would be held responsible for Person B's death.

This is the logical conclusion of extreme Calvinism when you break it all down.

Perfect reasoning except that I wouldn't have used the term "extreme".

You don't have to be an "extreme Calvinist" to believe this. This is, in fact, what regular old, garden variety, Calvinism teaches. Any one who calls themselves a Calvinist and does not believe this, is ignorant of what their claimed doctrine teaches and if such a person were to ask their pastor, they'd find out that this is the official doctrinal position of their church and that this must be the case. Otherwise, they'd say, God is neither sovereign nor immutable.

And, by their definition of the terms "sovereign" and "immutable", they'd be correct.

 

[Idolater]

There are some extreme Calvinist theologians out there who will use philosophical reasoning to explain away the reasons as to why God can't possibly be the author of sin while, at the same time, creating a world where man would have no choice but to sin. They use examples of what they call "primary" and "secondary" causes.

It goes something like this...

The primary cause, initiated by God, was to slay the Lamb before the foundation of the world. The purpose of this is to glorify Himself by redeeming a particular people, His sheep. By necessity, God also had to create a world where man had no choice but to sin in order for His sheep to be redeemed. The act of sin by man then becomes the secondary cause and this somehow lets God off the hook as the author of evil.

That logic simply doesn't follow and here is why...

Imagine Person A mails a bomb to Person B. It is inevitable that Person B will receive the package and open it, triggering an explosion that results in Person B's death. The primary cause in this case is when Person A dropped off the package at the mail carrier. The secondary cause is when Person B opened the package. In a court of law, could Person A blame Person B for opening the package? No, in every scenario, Person A would be held responsible for Person B's death.

This is the logical conclusion of extreme Calvinism when you break it all down.

You're just focusing in on one lapsarian position. The one that states that God decreed the fall before He created. That's not standard or canonical Clavinism—that's just one party among Clavinists. Others believe He decreed the Fall only after He created, and not before. So He creates, then Satan falls, then He decrees Satan will successfully entice and persuade Adam and Eve to Fall, because He knows them both to the core, and He's not going to stop Satan from possessing the serpent and gaining access to them. That's basically the pattern of the decree this latter party within Clavinism believes, so it's not as straightforward but more nuanced than your analysis presupposes.

The supralapsarians, sure, they believe what you say, and they cannot really imo defend against the charge that they have God responsible for sin, but more than that supralapsarianism conflicts with the Bible—supralapsarians just hand wave to get around that. Thing is, it's more logical to be supralapsarian, but it doesn't fit the Bible as well as infralapsarianism does, so infralapsarian Clavinists might even be the dominant party within Clavinism, idk, maybe the Chat bot knows the answer to that.

 

[Clete]

You're just focusing in on one lapsarian position. The one that states that God decreed the fall before He created. That's not standard or canonical Clavinism—that's just one party among Clavinists.

False!

"I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will...​

...Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23)​

​

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)​

Others believe He decreed the Fall only after He created, and not before.

False.

There is no "after" or "before" with God according to Calvinism. They believe that God is utterly and absolutely immutable.

Your own Augustine of Hippo believed this also!

So He creates, then Satan falls, then He decrees Satan will successfully entice and persuade Adam and Eve to Fall, because He knows them both to the core, and He's not going to stop Satan from possessing the serpent and gaining access to them. That's basically the pattern of the decree this latter party within Clavinism believes, so it's not as straightforward but more nuanced than your analysis presupposes.

The supralapsarians, sure, they believe what you say, and they cannot really imo defend against the charge that they have God responsible for sin, but more than that supralapsarianism conflicts with the Bible—supralapsarians just hand wave to get around that. Thing is, it's more logical to be supralapsarian, but it doesn't fit the Bible as well as infralapsarianism does, so infralapsarian Clavinists might even be the dominant party within Clavinism, idk, maybe the Chat bot knows the answer to that.

Any Calvinist who teaches otherwise is contradicting his own doctrine in one way or another. He is either ignorant of it or is merely giving lip service to a differing position because he sees the incongruity within the Calvinist system between foreknowledge and predestination vs. God's own righteousness. You can know that it is mere lip service though because it only ever goes in one direction. It is always God's character that is sacrificed rather than the doctrines of predestination, omniscience and "sovereignty" (all of which are just corollaries of immutability).

 

[Nolan]

So He creates, then Satan falls, then He decrees Satan will successfully entice and persuade Adam and Eve to Fall, because He knows them both to the core, and He's not going to stop Satan from possessing the serpent and gaining access to them.

But that position too will ultimately come to the same logical conclusion when you press the issue. In that case, Satan becomes the secondary cause and then what, Adam becomes the tertiary cause? See, all these guys can do is keep kicking the can down the road. It doesn’t solve the main problem with their theology.

I sometimes post over at the Baptist Board and I try to explain these things but all they can do is resort to insulting rhetoric when they can’t defend a position that has no moral foundation.

 

[7djengo7]

Clavinist

 

[Clete]

But that position too will ultimately come to the same logical conclusion when you press the issue. In that case, Satan becomes the secondary cause and then what, Adam becomes the tertiary cause? See, all these guys can do is keep kicking the can down the road. It doesn’t solve the main problem with their theology.

Excellent point!

I sometimes post over at the Baptist Board and I try to explain these things but all they can do is resort to insulting rhetoric when they can’t defend a position that has no moral foundation.

If you respond in kind, they'll ban you.

 

[Nolan]

If you respond in kind, they'll ban you.

Tell me about it. I’m on my third account there!

 

[Clete]

Tell me about it. I’m on my third account there!

I couldn't bring myself to make a new account. They're just so hypocritical. I can't take it.