• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Refutation of the "Fatalism" straw-man.

CmRoddy

Pre-Med Student
Apr 26, 2009
1,076
84
✟24,158.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Since most anti-Calvinists like to bring up this "oh, but Calvinism is fatalism" argument, I figured I would post the chapter of Boettner's book which refutes this false claim.

The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner.

"Objections Commonly Urged Against the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination." Chapter XV, Section III.

"That it is Fatalism."
Much misunderstanding arises through confusing the Christian Doctrine of Predestination with the heathen doctrine of Fatalism. There is, in reality, only one point of agreement between the two, which is, that both assume the absolute certainty of all future events. The essential difference between them is that Fatalism has no place for a personal God. Predestination holds that events come to pass because an infinitely wise, powerful, and holy God has so appointed them. Fatalism holds that all events come to pass through the working of a blind, unintelligent, impersonal, non-moral force which cannot be distinguished from physical necessity, and which carries us helplessly within its grasp as mighty river carries a piece of wood.

Predestination teaches that from eternity God has had one unified plan or purpose which He is bringing to perfection through this world order of events. It holds that all of His decrees are rational determinations founded on sufficient reason, and that He has fixed one great goal "toward which the whole creation moves." Predestination holds that the ends designed in this plan are first, the glory of God; and second, the good of His people. On the other hand Fatalism excludes the idea of final causes. It snatches the reins of universal empire from the hands of infinite wisdom and love, and gives them into the hands of a blind necessity. It attributes the course of nature and the experiences of mankind to an unknown, irresistible force, against which it is vain to struggle and childish to repine.

According to the doctrine of Predestination the freedom and responsibility of man are fully preserved. In the midst of certainty God has ordained human liberty. But Fatalism allows no power of choice, no self-determination. It makes the acts of man to be as utterly beyond his control as are the laws of nature. Fatalism, with its idea of irresistable, impersonal, abstract power, has no room for moral ideas, while Predestination makes these the rule of action for God and man. Fatalism has no place for and offers no incentives to religion, love, mercy, holiness, justice, or wisdom, while Predestination gives these the strongest conceivable basis. And lastly, Fatalism leads to skepticism and despair, while Predestination sets forth the glories of God and of His kingdom in all their splendor and gives an assurance which nothing can shake.

Predestination therefore differs from Fatalism as much as the acts of a man differ from those of a machine, or as much as the unfailing love of the heavenly Father differs from the force of gravitation. "It reveals to us," says Smith, "the glorious truth that our lives and our sensitive hearts are held, not in the iron cog-wheels of a vast and pitiless Fate, nor in the whirling loom of a crazy Chance, but in the almighty hands of an infinitely good and wise God."95
95The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 167.
Calvin emphatically repudiated the charge that his doctrine was Fatalism. "Fate," says he, "is a term given by the Stoics to their doctrine of necessity, which they had formed out of a labyrinth of contradictory reasonings; a doctrine calculated to call God Himself to order, and to set Him laws whereby to work. Predestination I define to be, according to the Holy Scriptures, that free and unfettered counsel of God by which He rules all mankind, and all men and things, and also all parts and particles of the world by His infinite wisdom and incomprehensible justice." And again, ". . . had you but been willing to look into my books, you would have been convinced at once how offensive to me is the profane term fate: nay, you would have learned that this same abhorrent term was cast in the teeth of Augustine by his opponents."96
96The Secret Providence of God, reprinted in Calvin's Calvinism, pp. 261, 262.
Luther says that the doctrine of Fatalism among the heathen is a proof that "the knowledge of Predestination and of the prescience of God, was no less left in the world than the notion of divinity itself."97
97Bondage of the Will, p. 31.
In the history of philosophy Materialism has proven itself essentially fatalistic. Pantheism also has been strongly tinged with it.

No man can be a consistent fatalist. For to be consistent he would have to reason something like this: "If I am to die today, it will do me no good to eat, for I shall die anyway. Nor do I need to eat if I am to live many years yet, for I shall live anyway. Therefore I will not eat." Needless to say, if God has foreordained that a man shall live, He has also foreordained that he shall be kept from the suicidal folly of refusing to eat.

"This doctrine," says Hamilton, "is only superficially like the pagan 'fate.' The Christian is in the hands not of a cold, immutable determinism, but of a warm, loving heavenly Father, who loved us and gave His Son to die for us on Calvary! The Christian knows that 'all things work together for good to them that love God, even to them that are called according to His purpose.' The Christian can trust God because he knows He is all-wise, loving, just and holy. He sees the end from the beginning, so that there is no reason to become panicky when things seem to be going against us."

Hence, only a person who has not examined this doctrine of Predestination, or one who is maliciously inclined, will rashly charge that it is Fatalism. There is no excuse for anyone making this mistake who knows what Predestination is and what Fatalism is.

Since the universe is one systematized unit we must choose between Fatalism, which ultimately does away with mind and purpose, and this biblical doctrine of Predestination, which holds that God created all things, that His providence extends to all His works, and that while free Himself He has also provided that we shall be free within the limits of our natures. Instead of our doctrine of Predestination being the same with the heathen doctrine of Fatalism, it is its absolute opposite and only alternative.
There is no longer and excuse. You cannot claim "ignorance" on this one.
 

CmRoddy

Pre-Med Student
Apr 26, 2009
1,076
84
✟24,158.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Human philosophy and rationales. Unless I missed it, didn't see a single Scripture quoted. Scriptures, pls? Or if this thread is not intended to discuss Scripture, please confirm same.

*sigh*

It's plain to see that you have not read Boettner's book.

He spent the first two sections of the book demonstrating the truth of Calvinism by providing Scripture and exegesis. The point of this particular section is not to prove the truth of Predestination, Archie. The point is to answer objections thrown at Reformed Theology. He already proved the truth of Calvinism in the first two sections.

It's rather sad to see you claim this is "Human philosophies and rationales" when you obviously have not done your homework.
 
Upvote 0

archierieus

Craftsman
Site Supporter
May 24, 2008
6,682
689
Petaluma, Califiornia
Visit site
✟77,639.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
*sigh*

It's plain to see that you have not read Boettner's book.

He spent the first two sections of the book demonstrating the truth of Calvinism by providing Scripture and exegesis. The point of this particular section is not to prove the truth of Predestination, Archie. The point is to answer objections thrown at Reformed Theology. He already proved the truth of Calvinism in the first two sections.

It's rather sad to see you claim this is "Human philosophies and rationales" when you obviously have not done your homework.

You posted here. If you have Scriptures to post, then by all means do so. Post them here, and I for one would be interested to take a look at them. The Bible, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
 
Upvote 0

CmRoddy

Pre-Med Student
Apr 26, 2009
1,076
84
✟24,158.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
You posted here. If you have Scriptures to post, then by all means do so. Post them here, and I for one would be interested to take a look at them. The Bible, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

Perhaps its time for you to do your own homework, Archie. It would be a shame for you to not delve into Boettner's book as it is, which Behe's Boy rightly pointed out, one of the best books on the subject.

I will not spend time trying to prove the truth of Calvinism in this thread. The point, which you once again missed for some odd reason, is to show that the argument "But it's fatalism!!!" is an invalid straw-man.
 
Upvote 0

archierieus

Craftsman
Site Supporter
May 24, 2008
6,682
689
Petaluma, Califiornia
Visit site
✟77,639.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Perhaps its time for you to do your own homework, Archie. It would be a shame for you to not delve into Boettner's book as it is, which Behe's Boy rightly pointed out, one of the best books on the subject.

I will not spend time trying to prove the truth of Calvinism in this thread. The point, which you once again missed for some odd reason, is to show that the argument "But it's fatalism!!!" is an invalid straw-man.

Then show it from Scripture. Or if that is not the purpose or intent, then so be it.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
You posted here. If you have Scriptures to post, then by all means do so. Post them here, and I for one would be interested to take a look at them. The Bible, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
I would like to see that also :blush:
 
  • Like
Reactions: joyshirley
Upvote 0

CmRoddy

Pre-Med Student
Apr 26, 2009
1,076
84
✟24,158.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Then show it from Scripture. Or if that is not the purpose or intent, then so be it.

Wow, there is no talking to you, is there? Do I need to copy/paste what I said again for you?
It's plain to see that you have not read Boettner's book.

He spent the first two sections of the book demonstrating the truth of Calvinism by providing Scripture and exegesis. The point of this particular section is not to prove the truth of Predestination, Archie. The point is to answer objections thrown at Reformed Theology. He already proved the truth of Calvinism in the first two sections.

It's rather sad to see you claim this is "Human philosophies and rationales" when you obviously have not done your homework.
You came back saying: "If you have Scriptures to post, then by all means do so. Post them here..." which is amazing, especially given the highlighted portion of my post above.

But of course, that doesn't seem to click. So I posted this:
I will not spend time trying to prove the truth of Calvinism in this thread. The point, which you once again missed for some odd reason, is to show that the argument "But it's fatalism!!!" is an invalid straw-man.
Can I be more clear than this? I don't think I can. But you still demand that I show Scripture.

If you are trying to bait me into ad hominem so you can report me then you should know that it won't work. This is the second time this has happened, and frankly, I'm getting tired of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tzaousios
Upvote 0
R

Rightglory

Guest
CmRoddy,

There is no longer and excuse. You cannot claim "ignorance" on this one.
But it did nothing to make a difference between the two. The bottom line is the same. He has a great rationale, he makes God who decrees the fatalism, but has nothing from scripture to support his assertion or definition.

Boettner may do a great job of defining Calvinism, and many of the doctrines of Calvinism but they all end up being his own personal interpretation. Just because it is based on some texts of scripture does not make it scriptural. If it does not measure up to what has always been understood about scripture, the Gospel, it is simply man's philosophical effort.

Based on the other subsequent posts I have no objection or disagreement that Boettner is probably one of the best Reformed theologians around since so many of you use his work.

But therein lies the inherent problem, it is Calvinism and not scripture as it has always been understood. He is simply putting forth his best interpretation of some texts in light of the presuppositions that Calvin made in error several hundred years ago. In this case he is trying to argue for predestination, as reformed understand it, which has never been part of the Gospel Truth.
 
Upvote 0
R

Rightglory

Guest
CmRoddy,

There is no longer and excuse. You cannot claim "ignorance" on this one.
But it did nothing to make a difference between the two. The bottom line is the same. He has a great rationale, he makes God who decrees the fatalism, but has nothing from scripture to support his assertion or definition.

Boettner may do a great job of defining Calvinism, and many of the doctrines of Calvinism but they all end up being his own personal interpretation. Just because it is based on some texts of scripture does not make it scriptural. If it does not measure up to what has always been understood about scripture, the Gospel, it is simply man's philosophical effort.

Based on the other subsequent posts I have no objection or disagreement that Boettner is probably one of the best Reformed theologians around since so many of you use his work.

But therein lies the inherent problem, it is Calvinism and not scripture as it has always been understood. He is simply putting forth his best interpretation of some texts in light of the presuppositions that Calvin made in error several hundred years ago. In this case he is trying to argue for predestination, as reformed understand it, which has never been part of the Gospel Truth.
 
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟36,128.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
CmRoddy,



But therein lies the inherent problem, it is Calvinism and not scripture as it has always been understood. He is simply putting forth his best interpretation of some texts in light of the presuppositions that Calvin made in error several hundred years ago. In this case he is trying to argue for predestination, as reformed understand it, which has never been part of the Gospel Truth.

You can't say what the book is or is not until you have read through it cover-to-cover. Have you done that? You are looking at scripture through your presuppositions - otherwise you would see that Calvinism is nothing more than the gospel.
 
Upvote 0
R

Rightglory

Guest
Behe's Boy,

You can't say what the book is or is not until you have read through it cover-to-cover. Have you done that? You are looking at scripture through your presuppositions - otherwise you would see that Calvinism is nothing more than the gospel.
Based on the two or so paragraghs that were quoted he is making an argument for predestination of a person to be a believer, as well as that the actions of man are predetermined. NONE of this is in scripture. So he starts off with an incorrect supposition and then compares it with fatalism of atheists. The bottom line is that they are the same. He could not even separate them in his own theology.

All he proved is that if an atheists accepts predeterminism it is called fatalism.
If a Reformed proponent accepts predeterminism it is called predestination.
The difference is not in the definition or explanation but who accepts it.

Scripture does not have suppositions that are alien, or imposed on it. The Gospel as given, All Truth ONCE to the Apostles did not have suppositions. They had the explanations of that Gospel. Scripture became the written part of that Gospel. It has been understood the same way, practiced the same way from the beginning as it was meant to be understood.

Calvinism is nothing more than the gospel according ot Calvin. Not a single one of the tenets of TULIP can be found in scripture as it has always been understood. Maybe you can show that predestination as Reformed understand it, has always been taught for the last 2000 years and is a principle doctrine of historical Christianity. The Gospel that has been preserved, unchanged by man over the last 2000 years.

Can you do that?
 
Upvote 0

CmRoddy

Pre-Med Student
Apr 26, 2009
1,076
84
✟24,158.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Behe's Boy,

Based on the two or so paragraghs that were quoted he is making an argument for predestination of a person to be a believer, as well as that the actions of man are predetermined. NONE of this is in scripture. So he starts off with an incorrect supposition and then compares it with fatalism of atheists. The bottom line is that they are the same. He could not even separate them in his own theology.

All he proved is that if an atheists accepts predeterminism it is called fatalism.
If a Reformed proponent accepts predeterminism it is called predestination.
The difference is not in the definition or explanation but who accepts it.

Scripture does not have suppositions that are alien, or imposed on it. The Gospel as given, All Truth ONCE to the Apostles did not have suppositions. They had the explanations of that Gospel. Scripture became the written part of that Gospel. It has been understood the same way, practiced the same way from the beginning as it was meant to be understood.

Calvinism is nothing more than the gospel according ot Calvin. Not a single one of the tenets of TULIP can be found in scripture as it has always been understood. Maybe you can show that predestination as Reformed understand it, has always been taught for the last 2000 years and is a principle doctrine of historical Christianity. The Gospel that has been preserved, unchanged by man over the last 2000 years.

Can you do that?

In other words: No, I will not be intellectually honest and read the entire book... why? Well, I'm basing this biased statement on one two page chapter in the entire book.

Come on, RG, you have to do better then that. Go pick up the book. You can even read it online for free.

Reformed Doctrine of Predestination | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟41,809.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

drstevej

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."
In Memory Of
Mar 18, 2003
47,577
27,116
76
Lousianna
✟1,016,631.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How could the doctrine of election lead to fatalism and indifference to evangelism when you understand that the elect are gathered together only one way and that is through the preaching of the gospel?


Agreed.

George Whitefield, an ardent Calvinist, was a tireless evangelist.
 
Upvote 0
R

Rightglory

Guest
CmRoddy,

In other words: No, I will not be intellectually honest and read the entire book... why? Well, I'm basing this biased statement on one two page chapter in the entire book.
And how could he be scriptural if he starts out supporting something that is not even in scripture. I have read enough Calvinism doctrine books in my lifetime to know that it does not change the Gospel Truth. Calvinism is Calvinism with all of its personal changes by the dozens, yet it can never be scriptural and retain the name Calvinism. If it was actually scriptural it would be the Gospel that Christ gave to us in the beginning. There is ONLY ONE Gospel. Calvinism is not it. You have not shown that it is either.

Show me that the book has any value. Show me that it might be scriptural instead of his personal interpretation. Which Church Father in the First Century does he use to show predestination was believed, practiced in the Church?
 
Upvote 0

drstevej

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."
In Memory Of
Mar 18, 2003
47,577
27,116
76
Lousianna
✟1,016,631.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
CmRoddy,

And how could he be scriptural if he starts out supporting something that is not even in scripture. I have read enough Calvinism doctrine books in my lifetime to know that it does not change the Gospel Truth. Calvinism is Calvinism with all of its personal changes by the dozens, yet it can never be scriptural and retain the name Calvinism. If it was actually scriptural it would be the Gospel that Christ gave to us in the beginning. There is ONLY ONE Gospel. Calvinism is not it. You have not shown that it is either.

Show me that the book has any value. Show me that it might be scriptural instead of his personal interpretation. Which Church Father in the First Century does he use to show predestination was believed, practiced in the Church?


Which books on Calvinism have you read completely?
 
Upvote 0