Calvinism is a combination of Theological Fatalism and Determinism, or is it?

[humblethinker]

Can anyone actually give an answer that is their own or at least in their own words? This is surprising.

Read through 7 pages...and still looking for it. Unbelievable.

Yes webdog, it is unbelievable.

And here's something that is interesting:

Philosopher Alan Rhoda states:

Now, fatalism can be understood as the doctrine that no events have an intermediate chance of occurring. By a 'chance' I mean a single-case objective probability. By an 'intermediate' chance I mean a value between zero and one. If the chance of an event is one, then it is unpreventable--it's guaranteed to happen. If the chance of an event is zero, then its non-occurrence is unpreventable--it's guaranteed not to happen. Fatalism simply says that, for any event, its chance of occurring is either zero or one.
...
I maintain that the future is modally open. As contingencies are resolved, the modal changes. Things that were possible may not now be possible. Things that are necessary may not always have been necessary.​

In this case, is the OP title question answered affirmatively? Calvinism is theological fatalism and determinism.

Does any Calvinist here deny that Calvinism, in effect, teaches that for any event, its chance of occurring is either zero or one?

 

[OldRegular]

Yes webdog, it is unbelievable.

And here's something that is interesting:

Philosopher Alan Rhoda states:

Now, fatalism can be understood as the doctrine that no events have an intermediate chance of occurring. By a 'chance' I mean a single-case objective probability. By an 'intermediate' chance I mean a value between zero and one. If the chance of an event is one, then it is unpreventable--it's guaranteed to happen. If the chance of an event is zero, then its non-occurrence is unpreventable--it's guaranteed not to happen. Fatalism simply says that, for any event, its chance of occurring is either zero or one.
...
I maintain that the future is modally open. As contingencies are resolved, the modal changes. Things that were possible may not now be possible. Things that are necessary may not always have been necessary.​

In this case, is the OP title question answered affirmatively? Calvinism is theological fatalism and determinism.

Does any Calvinist here deny that Calvinism, in effect, teaches that for any event, its chance of occurring is either zero or one?

I can't answer for Calvinists since Calvin and I disagree on some things. However as one who believes in the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace I would say that your flirtation with Open Theism has had a deleterious affect on your ability to comprehend what Scripture teaches about the Grace of God.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes webdog, it is unbelievable.

And here's something that is interesting:

Philosopher Alan Rhoda states:

Now, fatalism can be understood as the doctrine that no events have an intermediate chance of occurring. By a 'chance' I mean a single-case objective probability. By an 'intermediate' chance I mean a value between zero and one. If the chance of an event is one, then it is unpreventable--it's guaranteed to happen. If the chance of an event is zero, then its non-occurrence is unpreventable--it's guaranteed not to happen. Fatalism simply says that, for any event, its chance of occurring is either zero or one.
...
I maintain that the future is modally open. As contingencies are resolved, the modal changes. Things that were possible may not now be possible. Things that are necessary may not always have been necessary.​

In this case, is the OP title question answered affirmatively? Calvinism is theological fatalism and determinism.

Does any Calvinist here deny that Calvinism, in effect, teaches that for any event, its chance of occurring is either zero or one?

I have no clue as to what your talking about & are driving towards....so, whats your point?

 

[humblethinker]

I have no clue as to what your talking about & are driving towards....so, whats your point?

Just trying to establish and clarify the state of things. If what I've presented accurately reflects the state of things then that's the main thing I'm concerned about right now.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Just trying to establish and clarify the state of things. If what I've presented accurately reflects the state of things then that's the main thing I'm concerned about right now.

I will go of line to a PM & help you...

 

[Van]

Nine pages of shuck and jive, drawing distinctions between the future is fixed by God and the future is fixed by non-God as if that alters the belief we were damned or saved before creation and nothing we do will alter that outcome for ourselves or our loved ones.

So they:

1) Claim the idea does not reflect Calvinism and any claiming it does is ignorant or agenda driven or both.

2) No Calvinist can answer because they all believe different things.

The question is why would folks believe in something they are afraid to explain because it is absurd?

We know exhaustive determinism, God predestines whatsoever comes to pass is unbiblical, making God the author of sin. We know the biblical view is God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass, thus we make autonomous choices such as to sin, for which we are responsible. This is not rocket science.

 

[OldRegular]

This is not rocket science.

You are right, it is not rocket science: And the carnal mind will never understand the Sovereign Grace of God!

 

[Cypress]

You are right, it is not rocket science: And the carnal mind will never understand the Sovereign Grace of God!

Oooooh, dats da last stwaw!:BangHead:

 

[humblethinker]

You are right, it is not rocket science: And the carnal mind will never understand the Sovereign Grace of God!

Is it possible for the non-carnal mind to provide a reason for their belief such that carnal minds could understand? Are you saying that you believe something that is incommunicable and unintelligible? I would be suspicious of such a knowledge especially if it was my knowledge. What is it exactly that is not understood here?

Really, that does seem like the last Trump card to which I'd ever want to resort. Basically your out of cards when you play that one.

 

[Van]

OldRegular just did a number one. The question is does he get jellybean?

 

[Winman]

You are right, it is not rocket science: And the carnal mind will never understand the Sovereign Grace of God!

Translation- the Doctrines of Grace are illogical and do not make sense.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Translation- the Doctrines of Grace are illogical and do not make sense.

LOL--Qualifier- Only for those with their eyes wide shut & their fingers in their ears.:tongue3:

 

[Winman]

LOL--Qualifier- Only for those with their eyes wide shut & their fingers in their ears.:tongue3:

Baloney, Calvinism does not make sense to any rational person. A person has to throw their common sense out the window and allow themselves to be deluded to accept Calvinism.

That is why you claim the carnal mind cannot understand it (Calvinism), because the irrational and illogical cannot be understood.

If you want to delude yourself, that is your right.

 

[Iconoclast]

Baloney, Calvinism does not make sense to any rational person. A person has to throw their common sense out the window and allow themselves to be deluded to accept Calvinism.

That is why you claim the carnal mind cannot understand it (Calvinism), because the irrational and illogical cannot be understood.

If you want to delude yourself, that is your right.

EWF, has posted correctly.You ignore the lasting effects of Adams sin on all men....that is the root of much of your error.You deny it, so you cannot come to truth.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Baloney, Calvinism does not make sense to any rational person. A person has to throw their common sense out the window and allow themselves to be deluded to accept Calvinism.

That is why you claim the carnal mind cannot understand it (Calvinism), because the irrational and illogical cannot be understood.

If you want to delude yourself, that is your right.

:laugh: Understandably, its only irrational & illogical to those who are (oh sorry, you dont like my analogies)-- however Salvation/DoG theology is what makes perfect sense from my prospective. Guess what...also makes perfect sense to JonathanEdwards, George Whitfield, Cotton Mather, RC Sproul, Alistair Begg, Sinclair Ferguson, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, James Montgomery Boyce,James Petigru Boyce, John Piper, William Carey, John Dagg, William Livingston (NJ Signer of US Constitution) Phil Ryken--Wheaton's eighth president, Murray, Williams, Owen, Melanchthon, Gill, Pink, Ian Paisley, Driscoll, Bunyan, Milton, Grundem, Knox, Hodge, Zwingli, Beza, Gresham, Al Martin, Spurgeon, Samuel Rutherford, MacArthur, Baxter, Boettner, Kuyper, Warfield, C. Gregg Singer, Augustus Toplady (Rock of Ages), Packer, Albert Moeller-SBC, Archibald Alexander-A founding Professor @ Princeton Seminary, John Newton (Oh you know him--ever really listen to the song), Mark Dever, John Winthrop, Ian Murray, Tom Nettles, Tom Ascol, Tim George, John Webster, John Dagg, William Carry, Oh Rushdoony, John Nevin, Gordon Clark, D. James Kennedy....... I could go for tons more. Guess it makes perfect sence to these guys though Right! Guess Im in good company as delusional as we all are

But Im going beddie Bye! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[webdog]

You are right, it is not rocket science: And the carnal mind will never understand the Sovereign Grace of God!

What book is that quoted from? Certainly not the Bible! If your non carnal mind cannot even understand sovereign grace, who are you to question anyone?

 

[OldRegular]

EWF, has posted correctly.You ignore the lasting effects of Adams sin on all men....that is the root of much of your error.You deny it, so you cannot come to truth.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Sevenzedek]

Baloney, Calvinism does not make sense to any rational person. A person has to throw their common sense out the window and allow themselves to be deluded to accept Calvinism.

Please receive this post in the love I intend in it.

God's enemies would say the bible contradicts itself because of the following verses. How would you harmonize the fact that a holy God stirs up the nation of Assyria to do wickedly to Israel? No doubt; God will judge Assyria for what He stirred them up to do just as He will judge Satan for what He commanded him to do to Job; and Pilate for what he predetermined for him to do beforehand.

As one who agrees with many of the things that I have read from Calvin, I do not think I need to throw my common sense away. Rather, I see the bible verses displayed below to be in tension.

I submit to you that sorting out the nuanced distinctions of the sovereignty of God with the free will of man is going to take much more than common sense; for His ways are higher than our ways. Call the theological system what they may, but I still can't figure out how I work out my salvation with fear and trembling while God works in me the willing and doing of it at the same time. For me to say that God is 100% sovereign while I choose freely according to my nature is far from throwing away my common-sense. It is just plain old good bible-sense.

Here are those verses.

Isaiah 10:5-7
O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger,
and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.
6 I will send him against an hypocritical nation,
and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge,
to take the spoil, and to take the prey,
and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
7 Howbeit he meaneth not so,
neither doth his heart think so;
but it is in his heart to destroy
and cut off nations not a few.

And...

Leviticus 11:45
...be holy, for I am holy.

 

[Winman]

:laugh: Understandably, its only irrational & illogical to those who are (oh sorry, you dont like my analogies)-- however Salvation/DoG theology is what makes perfect sense from my prospective. Guess what...also makes perfect sense to JonathanEdwards, George Whitfield, Cotton Mather, RC Sproul, Alistair Begg, Sinclair Ferguson, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, James Montgomery Boyce,James Petigru Boyce, John Piper, William Carey, John Dagg, William Livingston (NJ Signer of US Constitution) Phil Ryken--Wheaton's eighth president, Murray, Williams, Owen, Melanchthon, Gill, Pink, Ian Paisley, Driscoll, Bunyan, Milton, Grundem, Knox, Hodge, Zwingli, Beza, Gresham, Al Martin, Spurgeon, Samuel Rutherford, MacArthur, Baxter, Boettner, Kuyper, Warfield, C. Gregg Singer, Augustus Toplady (Rock of Ages), Packer, Albert Moeller-SBC, Archibald Alexander-A founding Professor @ Princeton Seminary, John Newton (Oh you know him--ever really listen to the song), Mark Dever, John Winthrop, Ian Murray, Tom Nettles, Tom Ascol, Tim George, John Webster, John Dagg, William Carry, Oh Rushdoony, John Nevin, Gordon Clark, D. James Kennedy....... I could go for tons more. Guess it makes perfect sence to these guys though Right! Guess Im in good company as delusional as we all are

But Im going beddie Bye! :smilewinkgrin:

Yes, and Catholic doctrine makes sense to Catholic theologians and Mormon theology makes sense to Mormon theologians, so what?

What matters is if your theology is scriptural, Calvinism is not.

 

[Winman]

EWF, has posted correctly.You ignore the lasting effects of Adams sin on all men....that is the root of much of your error.You deny it, so you cannot come to truth.

What a laugh, you wouldn't know truth if it walked up and introduced itself to you.