Calvinism & Determinism

It seems Calvinism is simply determinism in the context of soteriology. Determinism is the cause and TULIP is the result. Let's walk through TULIP to see if we can spot determinism.

Total Depravity - Hum... not necessarily deterministic, unless one adds either that man is unable to choose between sinful options or that God treats an unable man as able.

Unconditional Election - Our destiny is determined before we were born without having anything to do with us. Clearly deterministic.

Limited Atonement - Christ's death was sufficient for all meaning if He had died for the reprobate, He could have been able to save them. The "possibility" of salvation is based on a different past then the actual past - a hallmark of determinism.

Irresistible grace - Those under grace cannot choose to reject. Denying contrary choice is another sign of determinism.

Perseverance of the Saints - Believers can't fall away. Basically the same thing same as the irresistible grace.

Arminius sums things up nicely:

From this decree of Divine election and reprobation [i.e. Calvinism], and
from this administration of the means which pertain to the execution of both of
them, it follows, that the elect are necessarily saved, it being impossible for
them to perish -- and that the reprobate are necessarily damned, it being
impossible for them to be saved; and all this from the absolute purpose [or
determination] of God, which is altogether antecedent to all things, and to all
those causes which are either in things themselves or can possibly result from
them. (link)

TULIP also requires awkward deterministic language to explain various passages. God unconditionally elects, but says He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Christ doesn't die for the reprobate, but tells them the banquet has been prepared, all things are ready. God withholds the only thing that can help, irresistible grace, yet asks what more He could have done. The elect can't fall away, but God warns of apostasy.

At this point, likely experienced Calvinists are probably saying sure, what's your point? But if you are new to Calvinism, I just want you to be sure you know what you’re getting yourself into.

Comments

Kevin Jackson said…
Very true. Sovereignty is for all practical purposes a synonym of determinism in Calvinism.

The supralapsarians would have a deterministic view of total depravity too, because they would say that God decreed the fall,
October 20, 2008 at 4:01 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Kevin,

Yep. Even most sublapsarians believe God causally predetermines the fall.

God be with you,
Dan
October 20, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more