Is Calvinism Synonymous with Fatalism?

Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
A GUEST POST BY STEVE HAYS
"I've posted most of the definitions at one time or another, but it's useful to collate them in one place.

Is Calvinism fatalistic? Is determinism synonymous with fatalism?

Critics of Calvinism use "fatalism" as an inaccurate term of abuse, because it has invidious connotations that a neutral term does not. Here are some standard definitions and explanations of fatalism. Calvinism is not fatalistic:

Fatalism, in its most usual sense, should not be confused with predestination. Fatalism asserts an abstract necessity without regard to causal antecedents and thus is diametrically opposed to predestination, in which causes and effects, ends and means, are determined in relation to one another. The use of means is rendered futile by fatalism, but not by predestination. The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 4:180.

According to this view, then, determinism is the thesis that everything that occurs, including our deliberations and decisions, are causally necessitated by antecedent conditions. Fatalism, by contrast, is the doctrine that our deliberations and decisions are causally ineffective and make no difference to the course of events. In circumstances of fatalism what happens does not depend on how the agent deliberates. The relevant outcome will occur no matter what the agent decides.

Clearly, however, determinism does not imply fatalism. While there are some circumstances in which deliberation is futile (i.e. 'local fatalism'), deliberation is nevertheless generally effective in a deterministic world. Paul Russell, "Compatibilist Fatalism: Finitude, Pessimism and the Limits of Free Will," Ton van den Beld, ed., Moral Responsibility and Ontology (Kluwer: Dordrecht, 2000), 199-218.

This is one of the most common confusions in free will debates. Fatalism is the view that whatever is going to happen, is going to happen, no matter what we do. Determinism alone does not imply such a consequence. What we decide and what we do would make a difference in how things turn out–often an enormous difference–even if determinism should be true. Robert Kane, A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will (Oxford 2005), 19.

An event is naturalistically fated just in case it occurs in every physically possible world. If there are such fated events, then in one clear sense somethings are going to happen no matter what–vary the initial conditions as much as you like (within the bounds of physical possibility) and the fated event will nonetheless eventuate. Naturalistic fatalism in this sense neither entails nor is entailed by determinism. John Earman, A Primer on Determinism (D. Reidel, 1986), 18.

Others hold to fatalism, the ancient (but still popular) idea that future events happen regardless of what we do. Fiction is full of eerie, fatalistic tales, usually about people who try hard to prevent a dire prophecy about them from coming true–but end up right where the prophecy says they will. Oedipus was fated to kill his father and marry his mother–which he did, even though he went to great lengths to try to prevent such a tragedy.

Are you fated to read this entire book? If so, then you will read it no matter what you do to avoid reading it, such as throwing the book in the trash. It is the view that all future events will happen no matter what anyone does. The future is fixed and will be a certain way regardless of our deliberations and actions. In modern times, fatalism seems to be an enormously popular idea. Soldiers have been known to say something like “If there’s a bullet with my name on it, I’ll get it. If there’s no bullet with my name on it, I won’t get it. Either way, I can’t change it, so worrying is a waste of time.” Some people express fatalistic sentiments with the old cliché, “Que sera, sera–whatever will be will be.”

Fatalism, however, is not the same thing as causal determinism. Causal determinism says that future events happen as a result of preceding events. That preceding events include things that we do, so many future events happen because of what we do. Fatalism says tht future events happen regardless of what we do. Causal determinists reject fatalism because they believe that people’s actions play a role in events that are determined. Lewis Vaughn & Austin Dacey, The Case for Humanism: An Introduction (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003), 68, 78-79. [Foreword by Evan Fales.]

It is sometimes supposed that the doctrine of Determinism–in the form of a belief in the causal interconnectedness of all events, from past to present and thence to the future–also has fatalistic implications. But this has got to be wrong. A determinist can well believe that just as our present actions are the effects of past events, so our present actions have their own effects and so can play a role in determining future events. That is to say, a causal determinist can consistently say that our wills are causally efficacious, at least some of the time. Since fatalism denies that our choices can have any effect on what the future is to be, a fatalist cannot consistently say this. Hence determinism does not imply fatalism.

http://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/sfu/philosophy/docs/bradley/fatalism.pdf

Oedipus was fated to kill his father and marry his mother. What do we mean when we say that? Certainly it must have been true that Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother. But at least on one understanding, the claim seems to involve more than that: it involves the thought that nothing that Oedipus could have done would have stopped him from killing his father and marrying his mother. Somehow, no matter what he chose to do, no matter what actions he performed, circumstances would conspire to guarantee those outcomes. Fatalism, understood this way, thus amounts to powerlessness to avoid a given outcome.

We can put the point in terms of a counterfactual: There are some outcomes such that whatever action Oedipus were to perform, they would come about.

This is a very specific fatalism: two specific outcomes are fated. There is no implication that Oedipus could not effectively choose to do other things: he was free to choose where he went, what he said, what immediate bodily actions he performed.

http://web.mit.edu/holton/www/pubs/determinism&fatalism.pdf

Fatalism is the thesis that all events (or in some versions, at least some events) are destined to occur no matter what we do. The source of the guarantee that those events will happen is located in the will of the gods, or their divine foreknowledge, or some intrinsic teleological aspect of the universe, rather than in the unfolding of events under the sway of natural laws or cause-effect relations. Fatalism is therefore clearly separable from determinism…

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)"

SOURCE: MONERGISM.COM Steve Hays is a contributor at Triablogue
 

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,358
3,626
Canada
✟745,552.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Vincent Cheung:

By some definitions, the terms “determinism” and “fatalism” are similar.

For example, some English dictionaries would define these terms in ways that fail to make a clear distinction between them. Merriam-Webster is too ambiguous for our purpose, and Webster’s New World Thesaurus considers the two synonymous. Certainly, even those who affirm “soft” determinism and accuse me of teaching fatalism would not want to accept these ambiguous definitions, since then they would become “soft fatalists” at best.

The definitions in theological and philosophical literature might be more precise.

By “fatalism,” I refer to the teaching that all events are predetermined by impersonal forces regardless of means, so that no matter what a person does, the same outcome will result.

By “determinism,” I am specifically referring to theological or divinedeterminism — I am referring to the teaching that the personal God of the Bible has intelligently and immutably predetermined all events, including all human thoughts, decisions, and actions, and that by predetermining both the ends and the means to those ends.

and

What are people going to accuse me of now? I can’t be accused of teaching fatalism, since I am saying that fatalism is too weak! But slanderers will think of something.


Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

sdowney717

Newbie
Apr 20, 2013
8,712
2,021
✟102,588.00
Faith
Christian
1 Peter 2, about the disobedient, they were appointed. While those who were obedient to the gospel message were obedient to God's commands to believe in Christ because they were chosen by God to believe, v9-10, according to His merciful love for them.

The disobedient have no love for Christ. To have that love inside of us, it must be birthed in us as when we are made new creations by the Love of God demonstrated in us.
Those who stumble over the cornerstone Christ, have been appointed to destruction and they show their true colors, their true nature by being disobedient to the gospel. Since they were not born of God, they will not come to Christ with faith that they can not have and so are appointed to destruction.
If you stumble over Christ, then that ROCK will fall on and crush you.

7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,

“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”

8 and

“A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”

They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

Luke 13:2-4New King James Version (NKJV)
2 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sdowney717

Newbie
Apr 20, 2013
8,712
2,021
✟102,588.00
Faith
Christian
Daniel 12:9-1021st Century King James Version (KJ21)
9 And he said, “Go thy way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

10 Many shall be purified and made white and tried, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.

The dead know nothing. The wicked shall do wickedly and never understand God's ways, never be purified, made white (forgiven), and tried by God's refining fire. God transforms us into new creations and we are no longer the wicked, God makes us alive who were dead in sins sovereignly without our input into that decision., read Ephesians 2.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What Fatalism Is
by B.B. Warfield

"This is a sad state of mind that people fall into sometimes, in which they do not know the difference between God and Fate. One of the most astonishing illustrations of it in all history is, no doubt, that afforded by our Cumberland Presbyterian brethren, who for a hundred years, now, have been vigorously declaring that the Westminster Confession teaches "fatalism." What they mean is that the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that it is God who determines all that shall happen in his universe; that God has not -- to use a fine phrase of Dr. Charles Hodge's -- "given it either to necessity, or to chance, or to the caprice of man, or to the malice of Satan, to control the sequence of events and all their issues, but has kept the reins of government in his own hands." This, they say, is Fate: because (so they say) it involves "an inevitable necessity" in the falling out of events. And this doctrine of "fatality," they say -- or at least, their historian, Dr. B. W. McDonnold says for them -- is "the one supreme difficulty which it has never been possible to reconcile," and which still "stands an insuperable obstacle to a reunion" between them and "the mother church." "Whether the hard places in the Westminster Confession be justly called fatality or not," he adds, "they are too hard for us."

Now, is it not remarkable that men with hearts on fire with love to God should not know him from Fate? Of course, the reason is not far to seek. Like other men, and like the singer in the sweet hymn that begins, "I was a wandering sheep," they have a natural objection to being "controlled." They wish to be the architects of their own fortunes, the determiners of their own destinies; though why they should fancy they could do that better for themselves than God can be trusted to do it for them, it puzzles one to understand. And their confusion is fostered further by a faulty way they have of conceiving how God works. They fancy he works only by "general law." "Divine influence," they call it (rather than "him"): and they conceive this "divine influence" as a diffused force, present through the whole universe and playing on all alike, just like gravity, or light, or heat. What happens to the individual, therefore, is determined, not by the "divine influence" which plays alike on all, but by something in himself which makes him respond more or less to the "divine influence" common to all. If we conceive God's modes of operation, thus, under the analogy of a natural force, no wonder if we cannot tell him from Fate. For Fate is just Natural Force; and if Natural Force should thus govern all things that would be Fatalism.

The conception is, we see, in essence the same as that of the old Greeks. "To the Stoic, in fact," says Dr. Bigg, "God was Natural Law, and his other name was Destiny. Thus we read in the famous hymn of Cleanthes: 'Lead us, 0 Zeus, and Thou too, 0 destiny, whithersoever ye have appointed for us to go. For I will follow without hesitation. And if I refuse I shall become evil, but I shall follow all the same.' Man is himself a part of the great world-force, carried along in its all-embracing sweep, like the water-beetle in a torrent. He may struggle, or he may let himself go; but the result is the same, except that in the latter case, he embraces his doom, and so is at peace." When a man thus identifies God with mere natural law, he may obtain resignation, but he cannot attain religion. And the resignation attained may conceal beneath it the intensest bitterness of spirit. We all remember that terrible epigram of Palladas: "If caring avails anything, why, certainly, take good care; but if care is taken for you by a God, what's the use of your taking care? It's all the same whether you care or care not; the God takes care only for this -- that you shall have cares enough." That is the outcome of fatalism -- of confounding God with Natural Law.

What, now, is the real difference between this Fatalism and the Predestination taught, say, in our Confession? "Predestination and Fatalism," says Schopenhauer, "do not differ in the main. They differ only in this, that with predestination the external determination of human action proceeds from a rational Being, and with fatalism from an irrational one. But in either case the result is the same." That is to say, they differ precisely as a person differs from a machine. And yet Schopenhauer can represent this as not a radical difference! Professor William James knows better; and in his lectures on "The Varieties of Religious Experience" enlarges on the difference. It is illustrated, he says, by the difference between the chill remark of Marcus Aurelius: "If the gods care not for me or my children, there is a reason for it"; and the passionate cry of Job, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him!" Nor is the difference solely in emotional mood. It is precisely the difference that stretches between materialism and religion. There is, therefore, no heresy so great, no heresy that so utterly tears religion up by the roots, as the heresy that thinks of God under the analogy of natural force and forgets that he is a person.

There is a story of a little Dutch boy, which embodies very fairly the difference between God and Fate. This little boy's home was on a dyke in Holland, near a great wind-mill, whose long arms swept so close to the ground as to endanger those who carelessly strayed under them. But he was very fond of playing precisely under this mill. His anxious parents had forbidden him to go near it; and, when his stubborn will did not give way, had sought to frighten him away from it by arousing his imagination to the terror of being struck by the arms and carried up into the air to have life beaten out of him by their ceaseless strokes. One day, heedless of their warning, he strayed again under the dangerous arms, and was soon absorbed in his play there forgetful of everything but his present pleasures. Perhaps, he was half conscious of a breeze springing up; and somewhere in the depth of his soul, he may have been obscurely aware of the danger with which he had been threatened. At any rate, suddenly, as he played, he was violently smitten from behind, and found himself swung all at once, with his head downward, up into the air; and then the blows came, swift and hard! 0 what a sinking of the heart! 0 what a horror of great darkness! It had come then! And he was gone! In his terrified writhing, he twisted himself about, and looking up, saw not the immeasureable expanse of the brazen heavens above him, but his father's face. At once, he realized, with a great revulsion, that he was not caught in the mill, but was only receiving the threatened punishment of his disobedience. He melted into tears, not of pain, but of relief and joy. In that moment, he understood the difference between falling into the grinding power of a machine and into the loving hands of a father.

That is the difference between Fate and Predestination. And all the language of men cannot tell the immensity of the difference." SOURCE

from Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol. 1, Edited by John E. Meeter, published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970. originally from The Presbyterian, Mar. 16, 1904, pp. 7-8..
 
  • Informative
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

royal priest

debtor to grace
Nov 1, 2015
2,666
2,655
Northeast, USA
✟188,924.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
These concepts fail miserably at expressing a biblical perspective of Divine Providence. Heidelbergh Catechism's definition:
The almighty everywhere present power of God, whereby, as it were by His own hand, He still upholds heaven and earth, with all creatures; and so governs them, that herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, meat and drink, health and sickness, riches and poverty, yea, all things, come not by chance, but by His fatherly hand.

Yet, even that doesn't touch God's intimate dealings with His bride, the church.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
These concepts fail miserably at expressing a biblical perspective of Divine Providence. Heidelbergh Catechism's definition:
The almighty everywhere present power of God, whereby, as it were by His own hand, He still upholds heaven and earth, with all creatures; and so governs them, that herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, meat and drink, health and sickness, riches and poverty, yea, all things, come not by chance, but by His fatherly hand.

Yet, even that doesn't touch God's intimate dealings with His bride, the church.

Thank you appreciate the Heidelbergh quote, however the intentions here are more negative (defensive) than positive confession. So many folks think Calvinism=fatalism, and I am here saying "no it clearly does not" and it is an insult to the true doctrine of the sovereignty of God to make such claims. The next time someone makes the claim, refer them to this thread, or copy and paste content from it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
From the Ligonier Ministries Site, a response from R.C. Sproul on fatalism...


The Just Mercy of the Lord

If a wicked person turns away from all his sins … and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die… . Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” (vv. 21–23).
- Ezekiel 18


Contrary to popular-level criticisms of Reformed theology, fatalism and Calvinism are not synonymous. There is a superficial similarity: both systems say the future is predetermined. Yet that is no more significant than the common affirmation of monotheism in both Islam and Christianity, for the unitarian Allah is not the Holy Trinity of the Bible. Likewise, the predestination of fatalism is not the predestination of Calvinism.

Fatalistic views of predestination rule out the true impact of our choices. In fatalism, all reality is ultimately impersonal, and impersonal forces cannot act with purpose. Neither a purposeful first cause—the personal God—nor purposeful secondary causes—you and me—determine the future. Everything happens by chance. Calvinism—biblical Christianity—demands secondary causes who act under the sovereignty of the personal God for His final purpose, namely, His glory. Fatalism says, “Whatever will be, will be. We cannot escape our fate. It does not matter what we do.” Scripture says, to paraphrase it: “God has foreordained the future and has left it mostly unrevealed to us. But God holds the future in His hands, and what we do, under His providence and in conjunction with other agents (including the Lord Himself), brings about the future He has ordained.” I am no slave to fate but a personal agent, and if I do not pray and act, my hopes will not come to pass (James 4:2c). What I do is not incidental to God’s plan for eternity; rather, “right now counts forever” (R.C. Sproul).

Ezekiel 18 records the prophet’s response to the Babylonian exiles who had embraced fatalism instead of biblical determinism. The community loved this proverb: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (v. 2). Essentially, the exiles were ignoring the prophet’s call to repent because they believed the Lord was judging them only for their fathers’ sins. Since their teeth were being set on edge for their fathers’ eating of sour grapes, they could do nothing to escape their predicament.

In all likelihood, this view was birthed from a misunderstanding of the Lord’s will to visit the sins of a people unto the third and fourth generation (Num. 14:18). But God never intended this to mean later generations would suffer for their parents’ sin regardless of whether or not they turned from their forefathers’ sin. That is Ezekiel’s point throughout today’s passage. The Lord is just and will not visit the sins of our ancestors upon us if we embrace His mercy and turn from our sin (Ezek. 18:21–23).

Coram Deo
God does not visit the sins of our parents upon us if we repent and turn from them. That is, we only bear the wages of our parents’ sins if we make these sins our own. The Lord is pleased to show mercy to His people when they forsake their wickedness and turn to Him, so we must never think that something we or our parents have done in the past can prevent our Father from forgiving us today—if we seek Him with all of our hearts."

Passages for Further Study


SOURCE
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Rev. Dr. James Anderson, associate professor of theology and philosphy at Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS), has written one of the most detailed articles I've come across on the subject. The entire article is a bit lengthy, so I will only quote a section of it with a link to the source.

"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."

SOURCE
 
  • Informative
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
A GUEST POST BY STEVE HAYS
"I've posted most of the definitions at one time or another, but it's useful to collate them in one place.

Is Calvinism fatalistic? Is determinism synonymous with fatalism?

Critics of Calvinism use "fatalism" as an inaccurate term of abuse, because it has invidious connotations that a neutral term does not. Here are some standard definitions and explanations of fatalism. Calvinism is not fatalistic:

Fatalism, in its most usual sense, should not be confused with predestination. Fatalism asserts an abstract necessity without regard to causal antecedents and thus is diametrically opposed to predestination, in which causes and effects, ends and means, are determined in relation to one another. The use of means is rendered futile by fatalism, but not by predestination. The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 4:180.

According to this view, then, determinism is the thesis that everything that occurs, including our deliberations and decisions, are causally necessitated by antecedent conditions. Fatalism, by contrast, is the doctrine that our deliberations and decisions are causally ineffective and make no difference to the course of events. In circumstances of fatalism what happens does not depend on how the agent deliberates. The relevant outcome will occur no matter what the agent decides.

Clearly, however, determinism does not imply fatalism. While there are some circumstances in which deliberation is futile (i.e. 'local fatalism'), deliberation is nevertheless generally effective in a deterministic world. Paul Russell, "Compatibilist Fatalism: Finitude, Pessimism and the Limits of Free Will," Ton van den Beld, ed., Moral Responsibility and Ontology (Kluwer: Dordrecht, 2000), 199-218.

This is one of the most common confusions in free will debates. Fatalism is the view that whatever is going to happen, is going to happen, no matter what we do. Determinism alone does not imply such a consequence. What we decide and what we do would make a difference in how things turn out–often an enormous difference–even if determinism should be true. Robert Kane, A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will (Oxford 2005), 19.

An event is naturalistically fated just in case it occurs in every physically possible world. If there are such fated events, then in one clear sense somethings are going to happen no matter what–vary the initial conditions as much as you like (within the bounds of physical possibility) and the fated event will nonetheless eventuate. Naturalistic fatalism in this sense neither entails nor is entailed by determinism. John Earman, A Primer on Determinism (D. Reidel, 1986), 18.

Others hold to fatalism, the ancient (but still popular) idea that future events happen regardless of what we do. Fiction is full of eerie, fatalistic tales, usually about people who try hard to prevent a dire prophecy about them from coming true–but end up right where the prophecy says they will. Oedipus was fated to kill his father and marry his mother–which he did, even though he went to great lengths to try to prevent such a tragedy.

Are you fated to read this entire book? If so, then you will read it no matter what you do to avoid reading it, such as throwing the book in the trash. It is the view that all future events will happen no matter what anyone does. The future is fixed and will be a certain way regardless of our deliberations and actions. In modern times, fatalism seems to be an enormously popular idea. Soldiers have been known to say something like “If there’s a bullet with my name on it, I’ll get it. If there’s no bullet with my name on it, I won’t get it. Either way, I can’t change it, so worrying is a waste of time.” Some people express fatalistic sentiments with the old cliché, “Que sera, sera–whatever will be will be.”

Fatalism, however, is not the same thing as causal determinism. Causal determinism says that future events happen as a result of preceding events. That preceding events include things that we do, so many future events happen because of what we do. Fatalism says tht future events happen regardless of what we do. Causal determinists reject fatalism because they believe that people’s actions play a role in events that are determined. Lewis Vaughn & Austin Dacey, The Case for Humanism: An Introduction (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003), 68, 78-79. [Foreword by Evan Fales.]

It is sometimes supposed that the doctrine of Determinism–in the form of a belief in the causal interconnectedness of all events, from past to present and thence to the future–also has fatalistic implications. But this has got to be wrong. A determinist can well believe that just as our present actions are the effects of past events, so our present actions have their own effects and so can play a role in determining future events. That is to say, a causal determinist can consistently say that our wills are causally efficacious, at least some of the time. Since fatalism denies that our choices can have any effect on what the future is to be, a fatalist cannot consistently say this. Hence determinism does not imply fatalism.

http://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/sfu/philosophy/docs/bradley/fatalism.pdf

Oedipus was fated to kill his father and marry his mother. What do we mean when we say that? Certainly it must have been true that Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother. But at least on one understanding, the claim seems to involve more than that: it involves the thought that nothing that Oedipus could have done would have stopped him from killing his father and marrying his mother. Somehow, no matter what he chose to do, no matter what actions he performed, circumstances would conspire to guarantee those outcomes. Fatalism, understood this way, thus amounts to powerlessness to avoid a given outcome.

We can put the point in terms of a counterfactual: There are some outcomes such that whatever action Oedipus were to perform, they would come about.

This is a very specific fatalism: two specific outcomes are fated. There is no implication that Oedipus could not effectively choose to do other things: he was free to choose where he went, what he said, what immediate bodily actions he performed.

http://web.mit.edu/holton/www/pubs/determinism&fatalism.pdf

Fatalism is the thesis that all events (or in some versions, at least some events) are destined to occur no matter what we do. The source of the guarantee that those events will happen is located in the will of the gods, or their divine foreknowledge, or some intrinsic teleological aspect of the universe, rather than in the unfolding of events under the sway of natural laws or cause-effect relations. Fatalism is therefore clearly separable from determinism…

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)"

SOURCE: MONERGISM.COM Steve Hays is a contributor at Triablogue
Hey AW, Calvinistic determinism is a fairly new concept to me, I stumbled into it pursuing some of the implications of election and predestination. I think you've pretty much nailed down the difference between fatalism and determinism so no need to clutter the thread by covering the same ground again. When I first encountered the concept what was brought to mind was the fatalism of eastern mysticism, specifically the fatalism of Buddhism and Confucianism. You will encounter this early when exploring Confucianism, Buddhism it's like the first rule of logic, 'suffering exists' is their premise. Confucius describes a prince seeing another wagon broke down and a guy trying to replace the wheel. He asks the prince to lend a hand but the prince refuses arguing that he would be interfering with the Karma that brought him to this misfortune. The fatalistic logic of these transcendent philosophies of spirituality is something you will encounter early and often. Monergism does have it's own deterministic language and principles, but this is anything but fatalistic. In the opening verses of Ephesians Paul introduces predestination with a fairly uncomplicated term. Just to give you an idea where I'm at with this, this is an exposition of the term for 'predestination' in Ephesians:

Predestination is not fate, that is not what is meant by Paul when he uses the term translated 'predestination' nor what Calvinists are talking about when they use it. The Greek word is proorizō (προορίζω G4309, from πρό G4253 and ὁρίζω G3724). It's composed of two Greek words, 'pro' which is the exact same meaning as the prefix 'pro', in the English, and horizō, which is where we get the word horizon from. The dictionary definition from Vine's Dictionary:

Determine, Determinate: pro, "beforehand," and No. 2, denotes "to mark out beforehand, to determine before, foreordain;" in Act 4:28, AV, "determined before," RV, "foreordained;" so the RV in 1Cr 2:7, AV, "ordained;" in Rom 8:29, 30 and Eph 1:5, 11, AV, "predestinate," RV, "foreordain." (Vine’s Dictionary)
Predestination is whatever God’s hand and counsel determined before to be done (Acts 4:28). That we as the elect would be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom. 8:29). That the elect would be called, justified and glorified according to God’s mercy and perfect will (Rom. 8:30). That the mystery of God’s will would be revealed unto our glory (1Cor. 2:7). The adoption as sons according to the good pleasure of his will (Eph. 1:5). That in Christ we would obtain an inheritance after the council of his own will (Eph. 1:11).

Those plans and purposes will not change whether you go on to faith, righteousness and glory, or find yourself in the fires of perdition. The emphasis is always, because it must be, the perfect will of God. Calvinism does not teach fate, eternal security is synonymous with eternal life and it's either that or eternal death, there is no third choice. Of course you have free will, at the feeding of the 5,000 a few choose to stay and most of them chose to leave, but your will is meaningless with regards to any personal merit you might have with regards to salvation. We don't know who is going to heaven and who is going to hell, to even ask the question is not of faith (Rom. 10:5-13). On the last day God will expose the secret intentions of the heart, therefore we are told not to judge anything before the proper time when God judges righteously (1 Cor. 4:5). Shall clay say to the maker, what makest thou? (Isaiah 45:9; Romans 9:21).

I've always been more of an intellectual evangelical then a mainstream Calvinist, so I trust you will forgive a lengthy exposition. With determinism we are entering the epistemology and ontology of philosophical discourse, defining key terms is the first order of business. I know your into the prepositional logic of Van Till apologetics, the influence of Kant on this approach is it's charm. I'm also relatively new to systematic theology so please pardon me if I'm a little clumsy with the subtleties of delicate theological concepts.

We are fated, in a very real sense, to either the righteousness of God in Christ or the fires of perdition. This does not dismiss free will, it brings it to a time of decision based on the revealed will of God through the preaching of the gospel and the witness of 'faith to faith' (Romans 1:1). It's not often, to the point of being almost rare to find a genuine intellectual on CF, I had almost given up hope that I ever would. The OP tells me otherwise, thank you for starting the thread with such a thoughtful and well sourced discussion of some of the principles.

I'm starting to ramble so I'll cut it short, I'd hate to turn my response into a sidebar. I just wanted to introduce my Biblical definition of predestination, more importantly Paul's, and hopefully use it to dispel any misconceptions about what I mean by the term. I also wanted to contrast it with eastern mysticism pointing out the grave reservations I have with pagan fate, and how it smothers the hope renewal promised to us so lavishly in the gospel.

I'll do what I can to catch up with the background reading and the discussion so far, but I'm given to tangents, so I have to limit myself to key points. I'll just say this, Calvinism does not have a fatalistic determinism, Paul's discussion of predestination and God's foreordained grace and righteousness in Christ is the opposite of mystical fate. It's reprehensible that some would equivocate the two, something akin to slander. God predetermined that the righteousness of God would be found in none other then the completed work of Christ on the cross, once and for all delivered to the saints, in the power and person of the Holy Spirit of promise.

My intention is to learn not to preach, just wanted to be clear where I'm at on the subject in hopes of pursuing the subject matter more seriously.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
What Fatalism Is
by B.B. Warfield

"This is a sad state of mind that people fall into sometimes, in which they do not know the difference between God and Fate. One of the most astonishing illustrations of it in all history is, no doubt, that afforded by our Cumberland Presbyterian brethren, who for a hundred years, now, have been vigorously declaring that the Westminster Confession teaches "fatalism." What they mean is that the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that it is God who determines all that shall happen in his universe; that God has not -- to use a fine phrase of Dr. Charles Hodge's -- "given it either to necessity, or to chance, or to the caprice of man, or to the malice of Satan, to control the sequence of events and all their issues, but has kept the reins of government in his own hands." This, they say, is Fate: because (so they say) it involves "an inevitable necessity" in the falling out of events. And this doctrine of "fatality," they say -- or at least, their historian, Dr. B. W. McDonnold says for them -- is "the one supreme difficulty which it has never been possible to reconcile," and which still "stands an insuperable obstacle to a reunion" between them and "the mother church." "Whether the hard places in the Westminster Confession be justly called fatality or not," he adds, "they are too hard for us."

Now, is it not remarkable that men with hearts on fire with love to God should not know him from Fate? Of course, the reason is not far to seek. Like other men, and like the singer in the sweet hymn that begins, "I was a wandering sheep," they have a natural objection to being "controlled." They wish to be the architects of their own fortunes, the determiners of their own destinies; though why they should fancy they could do that better for themselves than God can be trusted to do it for them, it puzzles one to understand. And their confusion is fostered further by a faulty way they have of conceiving how God works. They fancy he works only by "general law." "Divine influence," they call it (rather than "him"): and they conceive this "divine influence" as a diffused force, present through the whole universe and playing on all alike, just like gravity, or light, or heat. What happens to the individual, therefore, is determined, not by the "divine influence" which plays alike on all, but by something in himself which makes him respond more or less to the "divine influence" common to all. If we conceive God's modes of operation, thus, under the analogy of a natural force, no wonder if we cannot tell him from Fate. For Fate is just Natural Force; and if Natural Force should thus govern all things that would be Fatalism.

The conception is, we see, in essence the same as that of the old Greeks. "To the Stoic, in fact," says Dr. Bigg, "God was Natural Law, and his other name was Destiny. Thus we read in the famous hymn of Cleanthes: 'Lead us, 0 Zeus, and Thou too, 0 destiny, whithersoever ye have appointed for us to go. For I will follow without hesitation. And if I refuse I shall become evil, but I shall follow all the same.' Man is himself a part of the great world-force, carried along in its all-embracing sweep, like the water-beetle in a torrent. He may struggle, or he may let himself go; but the result is the same, except that in the latter case, he embraces his doom, and so is at peace." When a man thus identifies God with mere natural law, he may obtain resignation, but he cannot attain religion. And the resignation attained may conceal beneath it the intensest bitterness of spirit. We all remember that terrible epigram of Palladas: "If caring avails anything, why, certainly, take good care; but if care is taken for you by a God, what's the use of your taking care? It's all the same whether you care or care not; the God takes care only for this -- that you shall have cares enough." That is the outcome of fatalism -- of confounding God with Natural Law.

What, now, is the real difference between this Fatalism and the Predestination taught, say, in our Confession? "Predestination and Fatalism," says Schopenhauer, "do not differ in the main. They differ only in this, that with predestination the external determination of human action proceeds from a rational Being, and with fatalism from an irrational one. But in either case the result is the same." That is to say, they differ precisely as a person differs from a machine. And yet Schopenhauer can represent this as not a radical difference! Professor William James knows better; and in his lectures on "The Varieties of Religious Experience" enlarges on the difference. It is illustrated, he says, by the difference between the chill remark of Marcus Aurelius: "If the gods care not for me or my children, there is a reason for it"; and the passionate cry of Job, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him!" Nor is the difference solely in emotional mood. It is precisely the difference that stretches between materialism and religion. There is, therefore, no heresy so great, no heresy that so utterly tears religion up by the roots, as the heresy that thinks of God under the analogy of natural force and forgets that he is a person.

There is a story of a little Dutch boy, which embodies very fairly the difference between God and Fate. This little boy's home was on a dyke in Holland, near a great wind-mill, whose long arms swept so close to the ground as to endanger those who carelessly strayed under them. But he was very fond of playing precisely under this mill. His anxious parents had forbidden him to go near it; and, when his stubborn will did not give way, had sought to frighten him away from it by arousing his imagination to the terror of being struck by the arms and carried up into the air to have life beaten out of him by their ceaseless strokes. One day, heedless of their warning, he strayed again under the dangerous arms, and was soon absorbed in his play there forgetful of everything but his present pleasures. Perhaps, he was half conscious of a breeze springing up; and somewhere in the depth of his soul, he may have been obscurely aware of the danger with which he had been threatened. At any rate, suddenly, as he played, he was violently smitten from behind, and found himself swung all at once, with his head downward, up into the air; and then the blows came, swift and hard! 0 what a sinking of the heart! 0 what a horror of great darkness! It had come then! And he was gone! In his terrified writhing, he twisted himself about, and looking up, saw not the immeasureable expanse of the brazen heavens above him, but his father's face. At once, he realized, with a great revulsion, that he was not caught in the mill, but was only receiving the threatened punishment of his disobedience. He melted into tears, not of pain, but of relief and joy. In that moment, he understood the difference between falling into the grinding power of a machine and into the loving hands of a father.

That is the difference between Fate and Predestination. And all the language of men cannot tell the immensity of the difference." SOURCE

from Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol. 1, Edited by John E. Meeter, published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970. originally from The Presbyterian, Mar. 16, 1904, pp. 7-8..
You know AW, don't take this wrong, but sometimes I almost wish you weren't so well read on the subject. When I was in the Army a Lieutenant, who had been a philosophy major, was telling me how Stoic philosophy had been the theme of one of his papers on the subject of grief counseling. The expression was, 'whatever happens that is your fate', but I'm not sure that Marcus Aurelius style Stoicism has a great deal in common with Calvinistic determinism. Of course it's the sort of thing a Roman Commander would tell a solider wondering what fate might befall him, such musings about fate could lead easily to distraction.

I must admit, to see William James Pragmatism and the lament of Job mentioned in the same breath give me pause. This did catch my attention:

And yet Schopenhauer can represent this as not a radical difference! Professor William James knows better; and in his lectures on "The Varieties of Religious Experience" enlarges on the difference. It is illustrated, he says, by the difference between the chill remark of Marcus Aurelius: "If the gods care not for me or my children, there is a reason for it"; and the passionate cry of Job, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him!" Nor is the difference solely in emotional mood. It is precisely the difference that stretches between materialism and religion. There is, therefore, no heresy so great, no heresy that so utterly tears religion up by the roots, as the heresy that thinks of God under the analogy of natural force and forgets that he is a person.

The times I have encountered this contrast I cannot count, naturalistic logic and special revelation. To confuse God's providence with the primordial elements of earth, air, fire and water is an equivocation pagan mystics made, it's far removed from the worldview of the ancient Hebrews and certainly the Apostle Paul. I suppose I'll be popping in and out as I get a handle on these concepts but my compliments on an especially pointed quote.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,358
3,626
Canada
✟745,552.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
With pagan fatalism there is nothing you can do - it's mindless - there is no point.

With Christian predestination God is working through actions to accomplish His purpose.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
In another more recent thread titled "Predestined" the OP asked;

"Since God knows all does this mean we can't change our fates? That those who are saved are all saved and those who are damned can't change their fates?"

my response;

"Best to not equivocate the knowledge of the Creator with knowledge of the creature, nor assume the creature can penetrate into the mysteries of God, that he could know the mind of God in such an absolute way as to equivocate his knowledge with the knowledge of God. The thing is we do not know about others, and it is why the Gospel call is general, while the effectual call of the Spirit is particular.

P.S. I recommend not using the term "fate", the Christian doctrine of predestination, should not be confused with pagan fatalism. Were fatalism true, God would be bound by fatalism and therefore not sovereign. Fatalism has no existence, no being, no embodiment. If fatalism were true, it would be a servant a slave to the Most High God. Predestination by contrast involves a sovereign God personally and actively choosing electing individuals from the whole of mankind to be His people before the foundation of the world. So predestination is personal, where fatalism is impersonal. Well I hope you will give this more thought, I started a thread awhile back in Semper Reformanda titled; "Is Calvinism Synonymous with Fate?" which between the sources I posted does a better job of explaining than I have here. God bless."
I'd like to comment more, but it's difficult to even think here at home, shouting every few minutes...typical evening though. :/
 
Upvote 0