Calvinism : Fictional Characters

Presby02 said:
No such thing as theistic fatalism.
Click to expand...
I know you are just waiting for this lol.

Below is a clip from an article written by a respectable Calvinist attempting to answer this all too common objection:

Some would see the Calvinist as holding to what is sometimes called “Theistic Fatalism.” Obviously, much different than pure “fate” type fatalism, this view would acknowledge God as the cause of all things, which is certainly true, but would then lead to a false conclusion of inactivity. And this really is ultimately what separates a Theological Calvinist from a Theistic Fatalist: the conclusion we draw based on God’s sovereignty and ordination. Fatalism leads to inactivity, while Calvinism leads to the opposite…

The Calvinist’s belief in God’s sovereign power does not lead to inactivity, but rather activity on a grand scale. And part of the reason for this is that a Calvinist believes that God not only ordains the end; but also the means. Fatalism, however is largely unconcerned with the means, holding to more of a “let us eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die” sort of philosophy. This is much different from the result of a Calvinistic philosophy of God’s ordaining work. The Calvinist teaches that while God ordains the “end” of salvation for His elect; He also ordains the “means” of their salvation through belief in the gospel. Pure, Biblical Calvinism would lead to a vibrant form of evangelism; as I think you clearly see displayed in the New Testament by the Apostles. So the “end” and the “means” are both ordained by God. -Shane Kastler <link> (emphasis added)

It’s interesting to me that when a Calvinist seeks to defend against the charge of being a “Theistic Fatalist” he often argues “God not only ordains the end; but also the means” as if that is a point the Theistic Fatalist would in anyway deny.

That argument does not avoid the charge of Theistic Fatalism, but in fact affirms it. For what is Theistic Fatalism if not God’s determination of not only the ends but every single desire, thought and action (i.e. “means”) that bring about those ends?

What do the Calvinists think this qualification is accomplishing in their effort to distinguish themselves from the Theistic Fatalist? The belief that God unchangeably causes every meticulous detail of both the ends and their given means is at the very heart of Theistic Fatalism.

Are there Theistic Fatalists out there arguing, “God doesn’t determine the means,” while the Calvinists are going around correcting them saying, “No, no, no God does control the means too?” Of course not. Both systems of thought clearly affirm God’s cause of all things, including the ends and their respective means.

So, what is the author seeking to accomplish by pointing out a common belief that Calvinists share with Theistic Fatalists?

It appears to me the only real difference between a Theistic Fatalist and a Compatibilistic Calvinist is that the latter refuses to accept the practical implications of their own claims in order to remain consistent with the clear teaching of the Bible.
Click to expand...


In both Theistic Fatalism and Calvinism, if God sovereignly decrees for me to go witness to my neighbor He will give me the effectual desire to go witness to my neighbor. If my neighbor is one of His elect and God has unchangeably elected for me to be the means by which my neighbor comes to Christ, then logically I would have to believe that God will give me the effectual desire and the opportunity to carry out His preordain plan (i.e. “God ordained the means”). If that effectual desire never comes then why couldn’t I rightly conclude it ultimately was not God’s pre-ordained plan for me to be the means through which my neighbor would come to Christ?


So the next time a Calvinist argues that “God ordains the ends as well as the means” just remember this does not avoid the charge of Theistic Fatalism but actually confirms it. In fact, their system logically affirms that the believer’s inactive disobedience is as much according to God’s ordained plan as is another believer’s active obedience. So, if and when a Calvinist becomes “hyper” or “anti-evangelistic” in his behavior, he does so by God’s decree. And, so too, if a Calvinist becomes highly evangelistic in his behavior he does so equally by God’s decree (i.e. “God ordains the means”). A consistent Calvinistic scholar cannot get around this logical fact no matter how much theological rhetoric they use to placate their opponents. The best they can do is say, “Just don’t think of of it that way,” which in essence means, “Act like what we believe isn’t true.”https://soteriology101.com/2015/12/12/is-calvinism-theistic-fatalism/

And to that I say, “AMEN!”

​

hope this helps !!!
 
civic said:
I know you are just waiting for this lol.

Below is a clip from an article written by a respectable Calvinist attempting to answer this all too common objection:

Some would see the Calvinist as holding to what is sometimes called “Theistic Fatalism.” Obviously, much different than pure “fate” type fatalism, this view would acknowledge God as the cause of all things, which is certainly true, but would then lead to a false conclusion of inactivity. And this really is ultimately what separates a Theological Calvinist from a Theistic Fatalist: the conclusion we draw based on God’s sovereignty and ordination. Fatalism leads to inactivity, while Calvinism leads to the opposite…

The Calvinist’s belief in God’s sovereign power does not lead to inactivity, but rather activity on a grand scale. And part of the reason for this is that a Calvinist believes that God not only ordains the end; but also the means. Fatalism, however is largely unconcerned with the means, holding to more of a “let us eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die” sort of philosophy. This is much different from the result of a Calvinistic philosophy of God’s ordaining work. The Calvinist teaches that while God ordains the “end” of salvation for His elect; He also ordains the “means” of their salvation through belief in the gospel. Pure, Biblical Calvinism would lead to a vibrant form of evangelism; as I think you clearly see displayed in the New Testament by the Apostles. So the “end” and the “means” are both ordained by God. -Shane Kastler <link> (emphasis added)

It’s interesting to me that when a Calvinist seeks to defend against the charge of being a “Theistic Fatalist” he often argues “God not only ordains the end; but also the means” as if that is a point the Theistic Fatalist would in anyway deny.

That argument does not avoid the charge of Theistic Fatalism, but in fact affirms it. For what is Theistic Fatalism if not God’s determination of not only the ends but every single desire, thought and action (i.e. “means”) that bring about those ends?

What do the Calvinists think this qualification is accomplishing in their effort to distinguish themselves from the Theistic Fatalist? The belief that God unchangeably causes every meticulous detail of both the ends and their given means is at the very heart of Theistic Fatalism.

Are there Theistic Fatalists out there arguing, “God doesn’t determine the means,” while the Calvinists are going around correcting them saying, “No, no, no God does control the means too?” Of course not. Both systems of thought clearly affirm God’s cause of all things, including the ends and their respective means.

So, what is the author seeking to accomplish by pointing out a common belief that Calvinists share with Theistic Fatalists?




In both Theistic Fatalism and Calvinism, if God sovereignly decrees for me to go witness to my neighbor He will give me the effectual desire to go witness to my neighbor. If my neighbor is one of His elect and God has unchangeably elected for me to be the means by which my neighbor comes to Christ, then logically I would have to believe that God will give me the effectual desire and the opportunity to carry out His preordain plan (i.e. “God ordained the means”). If that effectual desire never comes then why couldn’t I rightly conclude it ultimately was not God’s pre-ordained plan for me to be the means through which my neighbor would come to Christ?


So the next time a Calvinist argues that “God ordains the ends as well as the means” just remember this does not avoid the charge of Theistic Fatalism but actually confirms it. In fact, their system logically affirms that the believer’s inactive disobedience is as much according to God’s ordained plan as is another believer’s active obedience. So, if and when a Calvinist becomes “hyper” or “anti-evangelistic” in his behavior, he does so by God’s decree. And, so too, if a Calvinist becomes highly evangelistic in his behavior he does so equally by God’s decree (i.e. “God ordains the means”). A consistent Calvinistic scholar cannot get around this logical fact no matter how much theological rhetoric they use to placate their opponents. The best they can do is say, “Just don’t think of of it that way,” which in essence means, “Act like what we believe isn’t true.”https://soteriology101.com/2015/12/12/is-calvinism-theistic-fatalism/

And to that I say, “AMEN!”

​

hope this helps !!!
Click to expand...
No it doesn't help! Now I have to look up "Theistic Fatalism" :ROFLMAO: "I'll be back". Said by the Terminator after being After being confused by Calvinistic lingo.
 
civic said:
yes its determinism :)
Click to expand...
civic said:
I know you are just waiting for this lol.

Below is a clip from an article written by a respectable Calvinist attempting to answer this all too common objection:

Some would see the Calvinist as holding to what is sometimes called “Theistic Fatalism.” Obviously, much different than pure “fate” type fatalism, this view would acknowledge God as the cause of all things, which is certainly true, but would then lead to a false conclusion of inactivity. And this really is ultimately what separates a Theological Calvinist from a Theistic Fatalist: the conclusion we draw based on God’s sovereignty and ordination. Fatalism leads to inactivity, while Calvinism leads to the opposite…

The Calvinist’s belief in God’s sovereign power does not lead to inactivity, but rather activity on a grand scale. And part of the reason for this is that a Calvinist believes that God not only ordains the end; but also the means. Fatalism, however is largely unconcerned with the means, holding to more of a “let us eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die” sort of philosophy. This is much different from the result of a Calvinistic philosophy of God’s ordaining work. The Calvinist teaches that while God ordains the “end” of salvation for His elect; He also ordains the “means” of their salvation through belief in the gospel. Pure, Biblical Calvinism would lead to a vibrant form of evangelism; as I think you clearly see displayed in the New Testament by the Apostles. So the “end” and the “means” are both ordained by God. -Shane Kastler <link> (emphasis added)

It’s interesting to me that when a Calvinist seeks to defend against the charge of being a “Theistic Fatalist” he often argues “God not only ordains the end; but also the means” as if that is a point the Theistic Fatalist would in anyway deny.

That argument does not avoid the charge of Theistic Fatalism, but in fact affirms it. For what is Theistic Fatalism if not God’s determination of not only the ends but every single desire, thought and action (i.e. “means”) that bring about those ends?

What do the Calvinists think this qualification is accomplishing in their effort to distinguish themselves from the Theistic Fatalist? The belief that God unchangeably causes every meticulous detail of both the ends and their given means is at the very heart of Theistic Fatalism.

Are there Theistic Fatalists out there arguing, “God doesn’t determine the means,” while the Calvinists are going around correcting them saying, “No, no, no God does control the means too?” Of course not. Both systems of thought clearly affirm God’s cause of all things, including the ends and their respective means.

So, what is the author seeking to accomplish by pointing out a common belief that Calvinists share with Theistic Fatalists?




In both Theistic Fatalism and Calvinism, if God sovereignly decrees for me to go witness to my neighbor He will give me the effectual desire to go witness to my neighbor. If my neighbor is one of His elect and God has unchangeably elected for me to be the means by which my neighbor comes to Christ, then logically I would have to believe that God will give me the effectual desire and the opportunity to carry out His preordain plan (i.e. “God ordained the means”). If that effectual desire never comes then why couldn’t I rightly conclude it ultimately was not God’s pre-ordained plan for me to be the means through which my neighbor would come to Christ?


So the next time a Calvinist argues that “God ordains the ends as well as the means” just remember this does not avoid the charge of Theistic Fatalism but actually confirms it. In fact, their system logically affirms that the believer’s inactive disobedience is as much according to God’s ordained plan as is another believer’s active obedience. So, if and when a Calvinist becomes “hyper” or “anti-evangelistic” in his behavior, he does so by God’s decree. And, so too, if a Calvinist becomes highly evangelistic in his behavior he does so equally by God’s decree (i.e. “God ordains the means”). A consistent Calvinistic scholar cannot get around this logical fact no matter how much theological rhetoric they use to placate their opponents. The best they can do is say, “Just don’t think of of it that way,” which in essence means, “Act like what we believe isn’t true.”https://soteriology101.com/2015/12/12/is-calvinism-theistic-fatalism/

And to that I say, “AMEN!”

​

hope this helps !!!
Click to expand...
No such thing as theistic fatalism. Fatalism has no causation. Fatalism is impersonal.
 
Presby02 said:
Nope. God is the cause and is a personal being.

Fatalism is neither. You know, like your orginal source says. LOL
Click to expand...
As for me I quite frankly DON'T CARE what anybody wants to call this. When you have a God who ordains EVERYTHING according to Calvinist but seek to claim man's free will to choose was in tact then such reasoning has to be defined a bunch of junk.
 
Hosanna said:
No it doesn't help! Now I have to look up "Theistic Fatalism" :ROFLMAO: "I'll be back". Said by the Terminator after being After being confused by Calvinistic lingo.
Click to expand...
This may help cure any confusion. In it you'll find a story of a little Dutch boy, which embodies very fairly the difference between God and Fate.

What Fatallism Is | Monergism

by B. B. WarfieldThis 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
www.monergism.com
 
Rockson said:
As for me I quite frankly DON'T CARE what anybody wants to call this. When you have a God who ordains EVERYTHING according to Calvinist but seek to claim man's free will to choose was in tact then such reasoning has to be defined a bunch of junk.
Click to expand...
Because you call it junk does not mean it's not true.
 
Presby02 said:
Because you call it junk does not mean it's not true.
Click to expand...
As for this message board readers here will ultimately decide for themselves it is or it is not. People in a religious forum WANT things to be a certain way and NOT a way that's different. If one takes Calvinistic claims in a court of law however they would be absolutely laughed out of court and a judge would be ticked off that anyone would even attempt to say if party A ordained everything beforehand with no chance of it being any thing different but then likewise insist the others were free to choose he'd tell you to leave his court and don't ever come back unless you can say something that makes coherent sense.
 
Rockson said:
As for me I quite frankly DON'T CARE what anybody wants to call this. When you have a God who ordains EVERYTHING according to Calvinist but seek to claim man's free will to choose was in tact then such reasoning has to be defined a bunch of junk.
Click to expand...
Yep 👍
 
Rockson said:
As for this message board readers here will ultimately decide for themselves it is or it is not. People in a religious forum WANT things to be a certain way and NOT a way that's different. If one takes Calvinistic claims in a court of law however they would be absolutely laughed out of court and a judge would be ticked off that anyone would even attempt to say if party A ordained everything beforehand with no chance of it being any thing different but then likewise insist the others were free to choose he'd tell you to leave his court and don't ever come back unless you can say something that makes coherent sense.
Click to expand...
And you know this how?
 
civic said:
It’s Calvinism in a nutshell
Click to expand...

One thing is certainly true. If you can ever get a Calvinist to accept the clear definition of theological terms, they will always lose the argument.

This is a true story. A "leader" at bible.org once asked me to assist in rewriting wikipedia articles to favor their position......

Talk about "baked in".....
 
praise_yeshua said:
One thing is certainly true. If you can ever get a Calvinist to accept the clear definition of theological terms, they will always lose the argument.

This is a true story. A "leader" at bible.org once asked me to assist in rewriting wikipedia articles to favor their position......

Talk about "baked in".....
Click to expand...
Wow
 

Similar threads

civic
The gospel what’s the point ?
Replies
13
Views
112
Damien
Damien
civic
Determinism in Calvinism and the Reformed Confessions
8 9 10
Replies
182
Views
677
civic
civic
civic
Does God really determine all evil ?
Replies
19
Views
215
TomL
T
civic
Unraveling the 1689 and WCF Confessions- The Mysteries in Calvinism
Replies
7
Views
252
makesends
makesends
civic
Gods emotions disprove Calvinism
Replies
9
Views
180
civic
civic
Back
Top Bottom