Calvinism and Secondary Causation

Al-Ghazali, the medieval Islamic philosopher-mystic, famously argued that the prevailing Aristotelian conception of causation was wrong for one main reason: Since God is the cause of every event, nothing else could be the cause of any. Take any instance of cause and effect: drinking water satisfying thirst; eating satisfying hunger; the strike of a match to fire. To Ghazali, what seems to be causation is merely association:

For the connexion in these things is based on a prior power of God to create them in a successive order, though not because this connexion is necessary in itself and cannot be disjoined-on the contrary, it is in God’s power to create satiety without eating, and death without decapitation, and to let life persist notwithstanding the decapitation, and so on with respect to all connexions... Indeed, the philosophers have no other proof than the observation of the occurrence of the burning, when there is contact with fire, but observation proves only a simultaneity, ‘ not a causation, and, in reality, there is no other cause but God. Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of the Philosophers

So God and his angels fabricate every event from scratch. What we see as one seamless reality is a series of creations woven around and in us in quick succession. For Ghazali, the upshot was a God who is in and around and beyond and besides. God is greatest when he creates, so he must be constantly creating! Ghazali's philosophy (called occasionalism today) was influential in his time but seems too fantastic to be taken seriously today. However, his argument can be modernized and applied to another school of religious thought that is far closer to mainstream Christian thought.

What Calvinism Teaches

As explained by the Westminster Confession, Calvinism affirms that

in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

According to the confession, every event that occurs is caused by God's decrees. God is the "first" cause. Every event he decrees occurs immutably and infallibly (adjectives we normally apply to God himself). The confession goes on to clarify that everything occurs, not by God's "bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding." God doesn't just let things happen. He causes things to happen immutably and infallibly. However - and here's where it gets interesting - these events follow after "secondary" causes.

So, in sum, every event that occurs was decreed by God to occur. God's decree is the sufficient cause of any given event. By "sufficient cause" I mean that once God issues the decree, it is certain that the event will occur. That's how I define the Calvinist doctrine of God's providence. I know not all Calvinists would describe it the way I have - some, like Piper and Sproul have used permissive language to describe God's decretive will. If they really mean it, then I'm not talking about their conception of providence.

The Problem: Moral Responsibility

Assuming God's providence as Calvinists see it, how can God not be guilty of sin? The traditional response, encapsulated within the confession quoted above, is that God doesn't commit sin because he ordains it indirectly via human actors who commit the sin. This explanation seeks to distinguish God, the "first" cause, from man, the "second" cause. The person who immutably, infallibly predetermines the commission is the first cause. The person who commits the sin is the second cause.

I think this explanation is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons, but for now I highlight a critical assumption: man's actions are causes too. I argue that, assuming a Calvinistic conception of providence, then no secondary causes could exist. If no secondary causes exist, God is not only the first cause but also the only cause.

What do I mean by "cause"? 

For now, I'll assume a counter-factual definition of causation. A causes B in the sense if A hadn't happened, B would not have happened. The rain caused the floor to be wet because if it hadn't rained, the floor would not have been wet. This is the most intuitive sense of causation (at least to me), and also bears the advantage of being the model used in most courts to adjudicate issues of causation.

The doctrine of God's decretive will is cloaked in mystery - how exactly does a decree cause an event? Does a decree violate the laws of thermodynamics? Does a decree come true like magic or is it administered by angels? However mysterious they are, however, God's decrees have to be causal at least in the counter-factual sense. God’s decree is a cause of X, Y and Z. Had God not decreed X, Y or Z, they would not have occurred. Thus, God's decrees are the counter-factual causes of X, Y and Z. That shouldn’t be controversial. If decrees aren't counter-factual causes, then necessarily, events may occur even absent any decree, which means the collapse of the Calvinistic doctrine of God's providence. So God's decrees are counter-factual causes, okay? Okay.

The Argument 

Let's suppose God decrees that X at T1. Let's call this decree Decree 1. God also decrees that Y happen at T2, very soon after T2. Let's call this Decree 2. X represents "John lighting the tablecloth on fire". Y represents "the tablecloth bursts into flames."

For X to have caused Y in the counter-factual sense, then had X not happened, Y would not have happened. But here, God decreed both X and Y. Thus, if X had not occurred, Y would have still happened, since God decreed Y. Thus, X could not have been a cause of Y. It's not lighting the tablecloth on fire that causes it to burst into flames. It's Decree 2 that causes it to burst into flames. Sure, you might have seen the cloth burst into flames soon after it catches fire. But as Al-Ghazali has taught us, looks can be deceiving.

You can generalize this with any event, and the same result follows. Just look at any event and identify the putative cause and effect (X and Y). Then ask, Did God decree X, and did God decree Y? If he did, then X could not have caused Y. As Ghazali concludes, in "reality, there is no cause but God." And if there's no cause but God, there are no secondary causes. And if no secondary causes, no grounds for man's responsibility.

Perhaps I can distill all of this into a syllogism.

1. Y occurred.
2. X occurred before Y.
3. Whatever occurs is decreed by God.
4. Therefore, Y was decreed by God.
5.  If X did not occur, Y would still occur.  (logically follows from [4]).
6. Therefore, X was not the cause of Y.

Cheers,
Finney

Guilt and Blindness in John 9

The story of the blind man in John 9 is a study in guilt. What makes us guilty, and what's the relation between guilt and our ability to obey and believe God?

Let's do a quick run through. The chapter opens with a question: Was the man born blind because of his sins, or the sins of his parents? To us, it seems obvious he was not born blind because of neonatal sins. But to Jews who were taught God doesn't punish children for the sins of their parents, the latter proposal is just as wrong. Jesus rejects this false dichotomy, announcing that he is blind so God's works may be shown in him.

After his sight is recovered, the man is brought to the Pharisees, who did not give him a warm reception; they reject Jesus' authority because he performed a miracle on a Saturday, and brand the healed man a sinner. When Jesus finds out what happened, he meets him, who then confessed, "Lord I believe."

At this point, Jesus announces a dramatic reversal: the blind shall see and the seeing shall be blind! The blind man has spiritual insight into Jesus' nature, and responds accordingly by worshiping. The Pharisees who should have recognized Jesus' nature, refuse to acknowledge him. And here's the lesson of the story: Jesus says to the Pharisees, If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." In other words, mere blindness or inability to acknowledge Jesus is not, in and of itself, sinful. But willful blindness is. 

The Pharisees can recognize Jesus for who he is, or at least they claim they can see. Their own claim to see renders them guilty. Thus, God holds people responsible, neither for the sins of their parents (Ezek. 18), nor those sins of their own ignorance, but for their refusal to do what they can do. How does God judge them? He blinds them. Blinding is God's way of punishing people for refusing to use the eyes he gave them.

This should shape our understanding of God. God doesn't demand us to reap where he hasn't sown. He doesn't call us to seek him while wearing an invisibility cloak. (Isaiah 45:19). No. God is good. He "judges the world fairly." (Psalm 9:8) Since we live, move, and exist by his power, "he is not far from any one of us." (Acts 17:27-28). Thus, when God directs us to follow up, we may confidently say, "For by you I can run against a troop, and by my God I can leap over a wall."

Alone but not lonely

Syracuse is cold, friendly, and friendless. Maybe it's an invitation to discover myself. Out among the trees and stretches of dotted highways, this is my do-over. Each day is a signal flare tossed up high, illumining some thing I didn't have eyes to see or ears to hear. Well, you've got my attention, self. Here's to the memories! I look forward to getting to know ya.

Signed,
Finnegans

truth over cliche

Are God’s consolations not enough for you? Job 15:11

This would have made a great punch line for a sermon. "Isn't God enough for you? Aren't his promises enough? If his grace has brought you to it, won't his grace bring you through it?" Applause

Except it wasn't God that asked. It was Eliphaz. The guy who, like Job's other friends, just wouldn't stop preaching. Eliphaz' speech consisted of various wise aphorisms and sayings. Each verse of his speech could stand on its own as a musing on sin and morality. Individually, some of them were noble, true, even poignant. But Eliphaz took these sayings, fletched arrows out of them, and fired them at Job. And all Job heard was, Our God is Great, Our God is Awesome, and You are Bad, Bad, Bad.

The question at issue can be a great reminder of God's many consolations I experience throughout the week. But when uttered in this context, it was an accusation.

Which reminds me of Job's speeches. Job's own words about God were ... less than flattering. He calls him a bear lying in wait, a hunter who laid mines all around Job. A seasoned master at arms, "he bursts upon me; he rushes at me like a warrior." Job minces no words: God has set a target on his back. And regarding his friends pious declarations, Job retorts,

Will you speak wickedly on God’s behalf?

    Will you speak deceitfully for him?

Will you show him partiality?

    Will you argue the case for God?

 

Yet in the end, Job's friends lose the speech-talent competition. In the end, God validates Job. So what do I learn here? One thing is what relationship with God looks like when the world beats you down. It's not clichés and platitudes. It's wrestling with God and demanding justice. Job's anger at God stemmed from a God-given sense of justice. Job's urge to his friends about showing partiality channel's God's own heart - for God "shows no partiality to princes and does not favor the rich over the poor". Job is anguished at God because he was made in his image, and therefore of course he should anguish at apparent inexplicable suffering. 

 

We don't need to argue God's case to our friends when they suffer, nor when we suffer. When we suffer, we should vent our God-given sense of justice, craving for shalom and love. When we feel forsaken, it's okay to admit it. God will understand. He did it as well.

Not the Critic Who Counts

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles,or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. 

 

                                                                       Theodore Roosevelt, Citizenship In a Republic (1910) 

 

 

 

 

Loki

His ears always perked
His expression thoughtful
Loki was his name
He was a handful

A master builder
of tunnels and castles
His greatest making was
The bridge to my heart

Never in a rush
Did not ask for much
Except for food, water
And a gentle touch

Solitary, unafraid
Adventurous, modest
Curious, Cautious,
                                                                                            Leaving him, the hardest.


Loki (?/?/2013 - 10/1/2015)

America, the dream, the place

Give me your tired, your poor
Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.