The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Calvinism and Free Will

Theology Philosophical
#1

As of late, I’ve been reading and hearing calvinists who take the position that Calvinism and determinism are not associated. They claim that to believe God has fore-ordained or caused everything does not mean that people do not make meaningful choices: Heres a quote from Greg Koukl:
str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8201
[size=85]

[/size]

As far as I can tell, Calminianism and weak Calvinism (possiblyu compatibalism) are very much the same. That is, they believe the bible teaches a contradiction. Perhaps I’m wrong about this, but at this time that’s how I see it.

Aug

#2

Grace is sovereign? What is that supposed to mean? Grace is Grace. Until Calvinists pitch their ‘limited atonement’ nonsense, they will forever be caught on the horns of their own argument. Theologically, they are nothing but uncomfortable wigglers trying to sell something that no one is buying. They love their system at the expense of the Gospel - the image of God they put forth is so nasty that one wonders where it’s origins lie.

At Marburg, Luther, essentially, told the Reformed to bug off. The still love to call Luther their own - but they need to find another hero who didn’t burn people.

#3

Auggy: As of late, I’ve been reading and hearing calvinists who take the position that Calvinism and determinism are not associated. They claim that to believe God has fore-ordained or caused everything does not mean that people do not make meaningful choices…

Tom: I’ve heard the term “Reformed” used to describe people who aren’t theological determinists. But “Cavlinism” and “theological determinism” go hand in hand, Koukl’s comments notwithstanding. Theological determinism is the claim that God decides/decrees everything that happens. It’s a quite simple claim (Westminster Conf & Dort). Whatever freedom is understood to be, it’s “compatible” with it’s being the case that God determined/decreed that I make the choices I make. Of course Calvinists/theological determinists agree we’re free to make the choices we make. You can’t make the choices you actually make if you were not free to make THOSE choices. (Whether and in what sense you’re free to make choices OTHER than the ones you actually make is the debate over freedom.)

Westminster Confession: “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby [there’s the mystery card played] neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” So too, the Synod of Dort affirms that God ordains “whatsoever comes to pass: yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures.”

These passages define “theological determinism”-- God determines what occurs in the world, period. No Calvinist I know denies this.

Tom

#4

I think it’s easier to argue the opposite, that theological determinism is not Calvinism. Calvinism has some unique features that theological determinism does not incorporate, although conversely, to a certain extent Calvinists must have some level of determinism to be Calvinist. This confused cross talk by Calvinists though is yet another symptom of where systematic theologies have gone wrong. They’re starting to realize that their positions are not supported by scripture, and in an attempt to remedy that, rather than affirm universalism, they try to amend their views to more closely match scripture and end up with nonsense like this.

#5

FWIW, the followers of Calvin who trained me at Fuller Seminary sounded precisely as Tom describes: God pre-determined everything, esp. who the cross would save, except for the contradictory ‘mystery’ that everyone had a ‘choice’ that they were blame-worthy for making. This confusing idea that only men who made the wrong choice were responsible for what God chose to do appeared to be motivated by a desire to make God appear less perverse in ordaining endless punishment for those hopeless multitudes who did not come to faith. (Talbott comments on experiencing this teaching at Fuller in the introduction of his Inescapeable Love.)

#6

That’s right Bob. And it dudn’t matter–infralap or supralap. What matters is that God alone, sovereignly determines all that occurs in the world. That’s God’s decree. And the divine decrees are characterized by three crucial things: 1) they’re unconditional (not conditioned by ANYTHING outside of God’s own good pleasure, and so not conditioned upon foreknowledge as in Arminiansim), and 2) they’re exhaustive (nothing that occurs is exempt; God determines the minutia, the movement of a single dust particle in the Moon). And that’s all that theological determinism means, and 3) they’re efficient (they decree that and how an event is to occur, which folds secondary causation right up under primary causes).

“Calvinism” is used because he crystallized things more clearly than others. But Augustine for example ended up a theological determinist through and through (though not a “Calvinist” because Calvin wasn’t around then). “The will of God,” Augustine argued, “is the cause of all things.” Thomists debate just what Aquinas was, but in my view he was a theological determinist (though not a “Calvinist” because he predated Calvin). But the VIEWS are the same. We just roll Aquinas and Augustine up under Calvin as far as this point is concerned.

Tom

#7

As philosophy goes, Calvinism is so systematized, so straight and defined, as to be worthless and a joke. It dehumanizes even Plato and renders the Muses as demons. It draws in freedom of thought to a tiny nugget and calls that tiny, tiny thing - wisdom. It is religion perfected. It’s appeal to pride and the pride of the elite is beyond equal. There’s no gospel quite like it.

Calvinism’s adherents will tell you that they love humanity as God does - selectively. Of course, as if by magic, all their straying sons and daughters will be saved by the same random selection. Imagine the odds of that happening! It’s amazing! Except ‘amazing’ is not in their parlance, is it, Tom?

The absurdists argue that a life without hope is possible and, more than that, lived well. Do you see the problem?

#8

Hey Ran, could you maybe explain how Luther differs from the viewpoint beside the fact that he didn’t hold to anything being ordained before creation. In Luther’s viewpoint, isn’t God still essentially choosing who is saved or not in an absolute manner. I’m not arguing with you, I just really think I misunderstand Luther’s position.

#9

Lutherans believe that Christ’s sacrifice justified everyone - forgave everyone - without exception. If people believe the Gospel, they are saved from spiritual death - if the don’t, it’s their fault, not God’s. If they are not hearing the Gospel, it is the our (the church’s) fault.

#10

Luther believed that Christ sacrifice justified everyone, but that nobody can make any move toward God without God bringing about that move. Practically, it amounts to the same thing as four point Calvinism (specifically Amyraldism) even though there are no ‘decrees’ involved. I guess I’m still misunderstanding how under Luther soteriology is practically that different.

#11

Luther (and Lutherans) don’t hold to double-predestination - that God creates some for heaven and some for hell. Instead, they say God creates all for heaven, but some refuse.

So sometimes our theology looks like universalism and at other times, the same old stuff.

#12

Luther didn’t hold to double predestination (I understand), but if you have God moving some and not all to salvation, that implies that some are damned due to not being predestined. The difference between predestination and double predestination is mincing words. Calvin’s double predestination is practically no different than that of Augustine or Aquinas (practically meaning, if/how one gets to heaven/hell, aside from the more Calvinist issues of when blah blah was decided and other ‘decrees’, which, of course, Luther would not have anything to do with, Luther being (to his credit, I say) much more mystical and against rationalization than Calvin) and…I fear, Luther. I mean, I think the title of ‘Bondage of the Will’ says it right there… Nobody comes to God unless God makes them come to God. If people are damned it is there own fault, YES. But since nobody can come to God without God, it is God that has all the cards.

That is Luther’s understanding of salvation from everything I know about Luther. That is not of course, the understanding of many Lutheran denominations (I’m really only familiar with the Evangelical Lutheran Church, which skews toward more universalistic thinking, like all the mainline churches do).

#13

I know, it get’s thick and hard the deeper one goes. But we do see something called Objective Justification - where God actually justified and forgave the entire world at the Cross - every person. So we do have our good moments. :mrgreen: And you ain’t gonna find THAT in Calvinism!

#14

Amen! While I can’t agree with everything in traditional Lutheranism, I do feel that the Spirit is in Luther’s writings, whereas Calvin’s theology seems totally abyssmal from my vantage point.

#15

So much of what Luther wrote was polemical - he was be hunted down. He turned from a rather meek, un-confident monk to a leading reformer of the Catholic Church. He has to be read sometimes with eye on the historical context more than on scripture.

The incredible slaughter of the 30 Years’ War was the Pope’s doing. Germany lost about half it’s population. Winning the hearts and minds for the Gospel? What a mess the church makes in trying to run the world. We like to think it was all a battle over theology, when it was more about power.