Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
William

Calvinism and Determinism

Recommended Posts

Staff

James Anderson

 

It’s often claimed that Calvinists are determinists. The claim is true as far as it goes; the trouble is that it doesn’t go very far, and it can lead to a lot of confusion and unwarranted conclusions. For there are many different types of determinism. Some of those types seem to be entailed by what Calvinists believe; some are consistent with Calvinist beliefs but not entailed by those beliefs; and some types are inconsistent with what Calvinists believe. (By “what Calvinists believe” I’m referring to mainstream historic Calvinism, as represented by the teachings of John Calvin and the major Reformed confessions and catechisms. I recognize, of course, that there’s diversity within the Calvinist tradition, but here I plan to focus on typical Calvinist claims.) Along with the claim that Calvinists are determinists goes the assertion that Calvinists are committed to a compatibilist view of free will, where compatibilism is defined as the thesis that determinism is compatible with freedom. Again, this claim is true enough, but it’s rather vague as it stands because in theory there are as many versions of compatibilism as there are types of determinism: for every type of determinism we can formulate a corresponding compatibilist thesis (viz., that freedom is compatible with that type of determinism). Indeed, there are even more versions of compatibilism than there are types of determinism, because there are also various kinds of freedom. For any particular type of determinism, that type may be incompatible with some kinds of freedom (e.g., the freedom to have chosen otherwise than one did in fact choose) but compatible with other kinds of freedom (e.g., the freedom to act according to one’s desires in a way that is responsive to reasons).

 

All this to say, the idea that Calvinists are determinists and compatibilists is rather more complicated than many people recognize. My purpose in this post is to try to clarify matters (at least to some degree!) by distinguishing various types of determinism and briefly commenting on whether or not Calvinists are committed to each type. (Understand that I’m not aiming here to defend Calvinism, compatibilism, or determinism, but only to shed some light on the relationship between them.)

 

Determinism, defined in the broadest sense, is the view that events are determined by (in the sense of entailed by or necessitated by) prior events or conditions. But that leaves open the questions, “Determined by what?” and “Determined how?” In what follows, I tease out some of the different answers to these questions and their relationship to Calvinism. (I don’t claim to provide here a comprehensive typology of determinism, only a selective list of important types.)

 

Logical Determinism

 

The strongest type of determinism is logical determinism: the view that everything is determined as a matter of sheer logical necessity. On this view there are no contingent truths or events at all; this world, the actual world, is the only possible world. Things could not have been different than they in fact are.

 

Within this type of determinism we could distinguish two sub-types: narrow logical determinism and broad logical determinism. Narrow (or strict) logical determinism would be the view that everything is strictly entailed by the laws of logic alone. I don’t know of anyone, let alone any Calvinist, who has defended such an extreme form of determinism.

 

Broad logical determinism, on the other hand, would be the view that everything is necessary in the broad logical sense. (Broad logical necessity is sometimes characterized as metaphysical necessity.) The broad logical determinist will deny that everything is strictly entailed by the laws of logic alone, but will hold that everything is necessary in the sense that 2 being the square root of 4 and elephants having DNA are necessary.

 

I think some Calvinists have affirmed broad logical determinism (or something close to it). The only clear instances I could point to would be the New England theologian Jonathan Edwards (at least on one common interpretation) and a couple of students whom I failed to persuade that there could have been a different number of elephants in the world than there actually are.

 

However, I’m confident in saying that the vast majority of Calvinists have rejected this strong (and implausible) position, and there’s nothing in Calvinism as such that requires broad logical determinism. If Edwards held that view, it wasn’t merely because he was a Calvinist but because he was committed to additional philosophical theses which, in conjunction with his Calvinist convictions, led him to that conclusion. (It should be noted that Edwards held to a number of idiosyncratic and controversial philosophical theses, such as occasionalism and idealism; he’s not your average run-of-the-mill Calvinist, to say the least.)

 

The bottom line, then, is that Calvinists as such aren’t committed to any form of logical determinism.

 

Physical Determinism

 

Physical determinism is the view that every event is determined by prior events in conjunction with the laws of physics (laws that are typically assumed to be fixed and unalterable, whatever they happen to be in terms of an ‘ideal’ physics). On this view the universe is essentially a very large collection of physical objects following predictable paths determined by physical laws.

 

It should be obvious that Calvinism doesn’t entail physical determinism. I’ve come across a handful of Calvinists who are physicalists with respect to human nature (and for all I know there are some Calvinists who are physicalists with respect to the entire created cosmos) but surely Calvinism as such isn’t committed to physicalism. Moreover, physicalism doesn’t entail determinism; a physicalist can be an indeterminist (e.g., if he thinks that quantum mechanics involves a real ontological indeterminism). And a physicalist who is open to divine intervention within the cosmos would affirm only a qualified physical determinism (i.e., events are physically determined assuming no divine intervention).

 

Causal (Nomological) Determinism

 

Causal determinism is the type of determinism usually in view in contemporary philosophical discussions of free will. For example, debates over compatibilism tend to focus on whether freedom is compatible with this type of determinism. Causal determinism is the thesis that every event is causally necessitated by prior events in accordance with the laws of nature (which, once again, are typically assumed to be fixed and unalterable). This type of determinism has also been called “nomological determinism” (from the Greek nomos: law).

 

Causal determinism isn’t strictly equivalent to physical determinism, because a causal determinist need not be committed to physicalism (the view that all causes and events are physical in nature). A causal determinist might think that there are mental events (i.e., thoughts) that are distinct from, and not reducible to, physical events, but which are also governed by laws of nature, broadly defined. In other words, there might be both physical and non-physical (e.g., mental) events, all of which are governed by a complex but unified set of natural laws.

 

Again, it ought to be clear that Calvinism doesn’t commit one to causal (nomological) determinism. Indeed, most Calvinists will deny causal determinism on the grounds that it would rule out divine supernatural intervention (e.g., miraculous events that violate or temporarily suspend the laws of nature, such that later events aren’t entailed by earlier events in conjunction with the laws of nature).

 

Divine Determinism

 

Divine determinism, broadly defined, is the doctrine that everything is determined by God. So defined, divine determinism isn’t committed to any particular account of how God determines everything, only that he does do so. Divine determinism doesn’t entail logical determinism, physical determinism, or causal determinism. It is conceptually distinct from all the types previously discussed.

 

I think it’s beyond reasonable dispute that Calvinism is committed to divine determinism, since historic Calvinism teaches that God actively foreordains all things; for every event E, God wills that E occurs, and God’s willing that E occurs is a sufficient condition for E’s occurrence. But that leaves quite a bit of room for discussion and disagreement about how that divine determination of events should be understood. So a more fine-grained analysis of divine determinism is needed. In what follows, I distinguish three different sub-types of divine determinism. (I don’t claim that this covers the entire terrain, only that it acknowledges a large part of the terrain.)

 

Causal Divine Determinism

 

Causal divine determinism, as I define it here, is the view that God determines everything by some kind of causation; in other words, God is the ultimate sufficient cause of every event. That still leaves open a lot of questions about the kind of causation by which God determines events. Note in particular that causal divine determinism does not assert or entail any of the following claims:

 

  • that God is the only cause of events (i.e., there are no real second causes);
  • that God is the direct or immediate cause of every event;
  • that God always employs positive causation and never negative causation;
  • that divine causation is on a par with intramundane causation (i.e., the kind of causation that operates within the created cosmos);
  • that God stands in the same causal relationship to good events (or good creaturely actions) as he does to evil events (or evil creaturely actions);
  • that the language of ‘permission’ is inappropriate or incoherent when speaking of God’s relationship to evil.
  •  

In other words, a causal divine determinist can reject all of the above without falling into any obvious logical contradiction. It’s also important to see that causal divine determinism doesn’t entail causal determinism in the technical sense defined earlier (i.e., nomological determinism). The verbal similarity may tempt one to make that connection, but the two views are logically distinct.

 

I take the view that mainstream Calvinism represents some version of causal divine determinism. I would argue (but will not argue here) that causal divine determinism is reflected in the writings of John Calvin, in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and (most importantly) in many of the biblical texts to which Calvinists have appealed in defense of their doctrines. But as I’ve noted, even if I’m right about this, it still leaves a lot of questions open. It also means that Calvinists are committed to compatibilism only in this sense: they’re committed to the thesis that human freedom is compatible with causal divine determinism (and not just any kind of determinism).

 

Non-Causal Divine Determinism

 

Non-causal divine determinism is another sub-type of divine determinism. It can be defined as the view that God determines everything, in the sense that he actively foreordains all things, but he does so by non-causal means, at least in part. The notion of non-causal determination is quite coherent in itself (examples available on request) and so non-causal divine determinism seems to be a coherent view in principle.

 

As I’ve contended elsewhere, Molinism is a form of non-causal divine determinism which attempts to reconcile a strong view of divine providence with a libertarian (non-deterministic) view of creaturely freedom. According to the Molinist, God foreordains all things according to an infallible decree, but he actualizes that decree by way of a mixture of causal and non-causal means. God strongly (causally) actualizes circumstances so that his libertarian-free creatures will make the very choices he knows in advance they would make if they were placed in those circumstances. Thus there is no chain of sufficient causation from God’s decree (or his actualization of that decree) to any creature’s free choice, although God nonetheless “brings about” (in some weaker sense) that choice by his manipulation of circumstances.

 

As I said above, I believe mainstream Calvinism reflects some form of causal divine determinism. If I’m wrong about that, Calvinism must be committed instead to some form of non-causal divine determinism, in which case it remains to be explained how exactly Calvinism is to be distinguished from Molinism.

 

Passive Divine Determinism

 

There’s another sub-type of divine determinism that deserves to be noted. Calvinism and Molinism represent versions of active divine determinism: God acts in such a way as to determine all events according to his infallible decree. By way of contrast, passive divine determinism can be defined as the view that God determines all things, but passively rather than actively. To put it another way: God non-willingly determines all things. Here I’m thinking particularly of the view (held by, e.g., non-Molinist Arminians) that God foreknows all things but doesn’t foreordain all things. According to this view, God knows infallibly everything that will take place in his creation, even though much of what takes place is contrary (in every respect) to his will. God has infallible exhaustive foreknowledge, but he doesn’t have an exhaustive decree that he infallibly brings to pass.

 

I think there’s a clearly intelligible sense in which, if God infallibly foreknows that an event E will occur, E is determined by God’s foreknowledge. E is determined or fixed in advance; it simply cannot fail to occur, given God’s prior foreknowledge. God may not have decreed E, or actively willed that E occur, or resolved to bring about E by some means or other, but E is nevertheless entailed by God’s prior beliefs about E. E isn’t absolutely necessary, but it is consequently necessary given God’s foreknowledge.

 

Obviously this is a much weaker type of divine determinism than those types affirmed by Calvinists and Molinists. But I suspect that many so-called Open Theists, who consciously reject this view, would agree with me that it’s reasonable to see it as a kind of determinism. They reject it in part because they think it’s incompatible with a libertarian (non-deterministic) view of free will.

 

The debate over how divine foreknowledge can be reconciled with human freedom has raged ever since the medieval period, if not earlier times. The fact that this problem is widely acknowledged and has proven so difficult to solve (at least if one assumes that we have libertarian freedom) supports the idea that divine foreknowledge involves a kind of determinism, albeit a weak one. Hence this longstanding debate can be understood as a debate over a particular compatibilist thesis: whether freedom is compatible with passive divine determinism. (In fact, the label ‘compatibilism’ has often been used for the thesis that divine foreknowledge is compatible with human freedom.) As I remarked at the outset, for every type of determinism there is a corresponding compatibilist thesis.

 

A Few Words About Fatalism

 

This post has focused on determinism, but it’s worth saying a word or two about how all of this connects with fatalism, not least because one sometimes hears the claim that Calvinism is fatalistic.

 

The term ‘fatalism’ can bear a range of different meanings. Sometimes it’s defined as “the doctrine that all events are determined by (or subject to) fate” — which doesn’t shed much light on what fatalism actually entails. Sometimes it’s defined as “the doctrine that all events are fixed in advance” — but again, that leaves considerable room for interpretation. (Fixed how? Fixed by what?)

 

Oftentimes fatalism is treated — quite misleadingly, I suggest — as equivalent to determinism. But as I’ve taken many words to explain, that leaves many important questions unanswered too, for there are various types of determinism. Furthermore, nearly all advocates of divine determinism would strongly disavow the label ‘fatalism’, not least because ‘fate’ is typically understood as an impersonal power or principle. So it would be lazy and irresponsible to suggest that Calvinism is fatalistic simply because it affirms a form of determinism.

 

A more interesting (and I think more common) way to understand ‘fatalism’ is as the view that events will turn out a certain way no matter what we do. The central idea here is that future events (at least the major life-impacting ones) are fixed in such a way that our choices are irrelevant; those events aren’t dependent on, or affected by, our decisions or actions to any significant extent. So a fatalist might believe (based on the pronouncements of a fortune-teller perhaps) that he will die on a certain date, or in a particular fashion, regardless of any course of action he might take now.

 

There are two important things to note about fatalism understood in this way. First, it doesn’t entail any of the types of determinism discussed above. Note in particular that this kind of fatalism could be true even if humans have libertarian free will. After all, if future events are fixed in such a way that they aren’t dependent on our choices, it doesn’t matter whether those choices are deterministic or indeterministic. (If you have an appointment with the Grim Reaper on a certain date, you can be sure he won’t be confounded by your libertarian free will!)

 

Secondly, fatalism (again, understood in this way) isn’t entailed by Calvinism. Quite the opposite, in fact: Calvinism entails that fatalism is false, because it affirms that future events do significantly depend on our choices and actions. Calvinists will insist, for example, that whether you spend eternity in fellowship with God depends crucially on whether you repent of your sin and trust in Christ. That’s far removed from fatalism.

 

Why Does It Matter?

 

Why does any of this matter? Here are several reasons. First, it matters because when we talk about important theological and philosophical issues we should aim to minimize vagueness, ambiguity, and equivocation. Clear thinking is good thinking, whatever the subject matter. (No doubt my thinking on these issues isn’t perfectly clear, but I hope it has at least made steps in the right direction!)

 

Secondly, it matters because one often encounters arguments like this: “Calvinists are committed to determinism, and determinism is demonstrably false and/or irrational.” When presented with such an argument, we should first ask, “What type of determinism do you mean? Are Calvinists really committed to the type of determinism you claim to be able to refute?” There’s a real possibility that the critic’s argument against Calvinism is guilty of equivocation.

 

Similarly, I’ve seen arguments along these lines: “Calvinists are committed to a compatibilist view of free will, but there are powerful arguments against compatibilism.” Again we should ask, “Exactly what type of compatibilism are Calvinists committed to? Do those arguments apply specifically to that type of compatibilism?” (I would also note that there are no knock-down arguments for incompatibilism and there are some formidable arguments against indeterministic views of free will — but those are topics for another time.)

 

So here’s the cash value. If you’re a Calvinist, the next time a fellow Christian accuses you of being a ‘determinist’ (as though that were a dirty word) you can reply, “Sure, I’m a determinist — and there’s a good chance you are too. So the question is: Which types of determinists are we? Once we figure that out, the next question we should ask is: Which types of determinism are consistent with the teachings of the Bible?”

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Calvinism vs Free WIll

      I don't believe in Calvanism, because the verses referring to predestination in the Bible are not referring to salvation, but rather the idea that God can do what he wants, assuming it isn't contradicting his just and loving nature. However, obviously, Calvanism does contradict God's nature.   It makes a literal joke of free will, obedience, and justice. How can one be condemned to hell, knowing his/her own actions did not send him/her there? Normally Calvanists have some weird story to explain the situation. However, common sense can tell you it's wrong.

      in Theological Debate

    • Through the theological lens of Calvinism

      When your understanding of scripture is corrected and you see through the theological lens of Calvinism for the first time:    

      in Lounge

    • Calvinism: What Have We Been Elected For?

      Can we have an honest conversation.  Most people, including some Calvinists, have a problem accepting the mental image that a good God has elected some to an eternity of life and love and perfect happiness with him, while abandoning everyone else to a fate of eternal torment.  Everything good for a few, and everything bad for the majority.   If you will indulge me on a little Bible study, I would like to take a closer look at this election and what we have been elected for.   First some general things that the elect are called to:   [Ephesians 2:10 NASB] 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.   So the first thing is that we have not been called to nothing.  The elect have been called to do something.  We have been ELECTED from among the population of the Earth to do the specific good works that God has already prepared for us to do.  So, like what?   [Matthew 28:19-20 NASB] 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." [Acts 1:7-8 NASB] 7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." [Acts 2:38-39 NASB] 38 Peter [said] to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."   The ELECT are called to be Christ’s witnesses to the world.  When we received the Holy Spirit, we received the commission that went with it to carry word of Him to the world, to make disciples, to teach them to observe all Jesus has commanded.   A word of warning for the Prosperity Gospel crowd, being one of the elect is not like winning a lottery ticket to easy-street.  Being one of the ELECT is a lottery ticket to being hated in this life.  Don’t take my word for it, read what Jesus and the Apostles say about it for yourself:   [John 15:16-20 NASB] 16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and [that] your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. 17 "This I command you, that you love one another. 18 "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before [it hated] you. 19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 20 "Remember the word that I said to you, 'A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. [Acts 5:41 NASB] 41 So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for [His] name. [Acts 9:16 NASB] 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake." [Romans 8:17 NASB] 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with [Him] so that we may also be glorified with [Him.] [1 Corinthians 12:26 NASB] 26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if [one] member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. [2 Corinthians 1:6 NASB] 6 But if we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; or if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which is effective in the patient enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer; [2 Corinthians 7:9 NASB] 9 I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to [the point of] repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to [the will of] God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us. [Galatians 3:4 NASB] 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain? [Phl 1:29 NASB] 29 For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, [1 Thessalonians 3:4 NASB] 4 For indeed when we were with you, we [kept] telling you in advance that we were going to suffer affliction; and so it came to pass, as you know. [2 Timothy 1:12 NASB] 12 For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day. [2 Timothy 2:3, 9 NASB] 3 Suffer hardship with [me,] as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. ... 9 for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal; but the word of God is not imprisoned. [1 Peter 2:20 NASB] 20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer [for it] you patiently endure it, this [finds] favor with God. [1 Peter 3:14, 17 NASB] 14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, ... 17 For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. [1 Peter 4:19 NASB] 19 Therefore, those also who suffer according to the will of God shall entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right. [Revelation 2:10 NASB] 10 'Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, so that you will be tested, and you will have tribulation for ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.   So let’s talk about Calvinistic Election.  The ELECT have won a ‘cosmic lottery’ granting them the ‘honor’ of being selected by the great ‘I AM’ to work for Him as His messengers in a world that will hate us.  This honor will include being mocked, discriminated against, and much worse.  Many will be beaten and many more killed.  This is what God has elected us to.   We have a promise that those who suffer well to the end, will be rewarded.   [Matthew 10:22 NASB] 22 "You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved. [Matthew 24:13 NASB] 13 "But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. [Matthew 28:20 NASB] 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." [Mark 13:13 NASB] 13 "You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.   God has not warned us that the ELECT will be called to endure “health, wealth and happiness” to the end and encouraged us that He will be with us to give us the strength to survive all of the blessings.  We have been elected to be those led at the end of the train of captives.  The slaves.  The beaten and oppressed.  The least in this world.  We have been called to be those who DO for God and who SUFFER for God.   There is a story that describes the life of the ELECT both now and later:   [Luke 16:19-25 NASB] 19 "Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. 20 "And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, 21 and longing to be fed with the [crumbs] which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. 22 "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 "And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.' 25 "But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.   Does it still seem unfair that God does not ELECT everyone to suffer for His name?   [Matthew 16:24 NASB] 24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. [Mark 8:34 NASB] 34 And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. [Luke 9:23 NASB] 23 And He was saying to [them] all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.

      in Calvinism

    • TULIP is not Calvinism

      Now that I have your attention let me explain what I mean by my title. The Acrostic TULIP is often used to describe Calvinism, however the Acrostic itself is a fairly recent construction (a little over 100 years old) and it is merely of modern summary of statements made in response to certain historical disagreements within the Church of Jesus Christ (the remonstrants). As such is it a negative polemical tool designed for use in specific area of discussion - it is not a positive a statement of 'Calvinism' or Biblical soteriology.   Properly understood and positively stated (as briefly as possible) Calvinism is the doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty over his creation to order it as he sees fit for his own Glory.

      in Calvinism

    • Hyper-Calvinism

      Most Calvinists reject as deplorable the following hyper-Calvinistic and destructive beliefs: - that God is the author of sin and of evil
      - that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
      - that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
      - that it is wrong to evangelize
      - that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
      - that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do
      - that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others
      - that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned
      - that God does not command everyone to repent
      - that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone.
      - that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church
      - that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.
      - that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority
      - that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men
      - that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination
      - that only Calvinists are Christians (Neo-gnostic Calvinism)
      Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism were both among the historical errors battled by Charles Spurgeon, who was himself a 5-point Calvinist. He vigilantly fought these twin errors on both sides of the spectrum. One of Hyper-Calvinism's main errors is to declare that, because of God's sovereignty, we should not evangelize the lost. Spurgeon rejected such nonsense as do the large majority of people who would call themselves Calvinists today (such as R.C. Sproul, John Piper, John MacArthur, Alistair Begg and many others) We believe the doctrine of election should be declared strongly because the Bible does and because man's affections are enslaved to sin. He cannot save himself but needs the effectual working of the Holy Spirit if he is to have ears to hear when we preach the gospel. The preacher casts forth the seed of the gospel (the command to believe) indiscriminately but the Holy Spirit germinates the Word (so to speak) in the hearts of those he intends to save; i.e. those given to the Son by the Father in the eternal covenant made before time (John 6:37, 39, Eph 1, 4). Many Christian missionaries whom most would consider heroes held to the five point of Calvinism: William Carrey (he was opposed by a Hyper-Calvinist), Jonathan Edwards & David Brainard (missionaries to native Americans) just to name 3.     Source: https://www.monergism.com/topics/hyper-calvinism

      in Calvinism

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.