# Calvinism or Arminianism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 29, 2010, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401 "2010-07-29T01:31:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/21 "2010-07-30T08:17:48Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > I think the Apostle Paul is basically Calvinist. I think Jesus is not. As I think Paul is basically an ass, you can guess which position I would favor if I were more Christian… Are we talking about the Jesus who actually taught Eternal (or Aionion) Punishment and Hell (Hades & Gehenna) and the Paul who taught Eternal (or Aionion) Destruction and also about possible Total Reconciliation while never mentioning any sort of Hell? That Jesus and Paul? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/22 "2010-07-30T11:52:26Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Given that, what do you suppose it means to be 100% predictable with 100% absolute certainty, regardless of the method this certainty is arrived at? Last I checked, that was pretty much the definition of being controlled by fate and lacking (libertarian) free will. Ah, in those terms (i’m afraid I had to go look them up), i’d say that libertarian free will is by definition incompatible with determinism. Honestly I think i’d tend to hope that we don’t have free will of that kind. Though that only works with 100% accuracy; you can still get pretty damn close, close enough potentially, I would argue, to make the three betrayals prediction work. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/23 "2010-07-30T13:09:22Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > This is basically the classic theological question of “Predestination or Freewill?” What in your opinion on this or if you’re nonreligious what in your opinion do you think the Bible says on it? God as described by Calvinists turns out to be capricious and cruel. God as described by Arminians turns out to be a failure. Universalism is the way to go. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/24 "2010-07-30T13:10:44Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > > > Nonreligious. I don’t think predictions, even very accurate predictions, are necessarily contradictory to free will. If you know someone very well, then you can have a fair guess at what they’re going to do in certain situations. If you knew everyone very well, then you’d pretty much be able to predict any situation. > > I’ve heard this, but it presumes that God/Jesus is just guessing - and given the extreme specificity of some of the predictions (three times before the second crow; some dude will have left a donkey inside the gate for you to find and will be happy to sell it to you) I don’t find it to be a credible counterargument. Either God/Jesus was making actual 100% accurate foreknowledge-based predictions, or the stories have been so doctored to _add_ accuracy and precision that they’re completely useless as narrative accounts. Foreknowledge doesn’t obviate free will, any more than postknowledge does. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/25 "2010-07-30T13:13:53Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Calvinism is one of the most twisted theological ideas I’ve ever heard of. Indeed. I have a book in which a defender of Calvinism says that of course God’s love is universal, and he even loves the people burning in the lake of fire. Because he loves how much agony they are in and loves to hear their screams. Because that is where they belong because he said so. And he loves that because he loves himself. So he loves them. I wish I were exaggerating, but no, that’s his argument. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/26 "2010-07-30T16:57:13Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I also don’t think that accurate predictions deny free will. Presumedly Jesus knew what Peter was going to choose to do. And he knew that saying it publically would not cause Peter to change his course of action. So he could safely make the prediction. > > If Jesus’ prediction would have shamed Peter into not denouncing Jesus, then Jesus would have known that as well and wouldn’t have made the prediction. That didn’t stop him from telling Judas to avoid the bread. ETA: Also, what part of being perfectly predictable doesn’t deny free will? When you start talking about Jesus being able to ‘safely’ make statements without changing the future, that doesn’t put the power to change Peter’s actions in Peter’s hands - it puts it in _Jesus’s_. Peter remains an automaton, merely reacting to things that happen, and absent changes to those things is locked into following his predetermined course. > [@Frylock](#): > > Foreknowledge doesn’t obviate free will, any more than postknowledge does. Foreknowledge does indeed obviate the possibility that we are not deterministic, precisely _by_ making foreknowledge comparable to postknowledge. Postknowledge is possible because the past is fixed; locked in place. You cannot choose to not have posted your prior post - if you had any free will on the subject, it’s certainly gone now. Thus I can know with certainty that you posted. Making facts about the future similarly certain similary removes any semblance of (noncompatiblist) free will from the future and present, too. The difference between libertarian and compatiblist free will is worth knowing, by the way, since compatiblist free will is not useful to most theistic arguments in defense of God. If God created us with the foreknowledge that we would use our compatiblist free will to choose a route that would lead us to eternal suffering, then he has wound up a wind-up toy and deliberately set it to walk itself into the furnace. And thus retains full responsibility. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Ah, in those terms (i’m afraid I had to go look them up), i’d say that libertarian free will is by definition incompatible with determinism. Honestly I think i’d tend to hope that we don’t have free will of that kind. Though that only works with 100% accuracy; you can still get pretty damn close, close enough potentially, I would argue, to make the three betrayals prediction work. I disagree - it’s the numbers that make it incredible (meaning, I can’t give the idea credit). ‘Then, shalt thou betray me thrice. No more, no less. Three times shall be the number thou shalt betray, and the number of the betraying shall be three. Four times, shalt thou not betray, neither shall thou betray twice, excepting that thou then proceed to thrice. Five times is right out. Once the betrayal three, being the third betrayal be reached, then hearest thou the cock be crowing, who being awake and in range of your hearing, shalt crow its second time - and until that time, not.’ Also it’s not like the bible is pussyfooting around this - of _course_ Jesus can predict the future with perfect 100% certainty. He does it rather a lot. To presume that he _lacks_ absolute certainty sounds almost like a modificaion of the character, along the lines of saying that Santa doesn’t _really_ squeeze down impossibly thin chimneys, but he instead picks locks to accomplish his covert gift-delivery services. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/27 "2010-07-30T17:58:16Z")
I was raised a Calvinist up till the age of 15. It was the Canadian Reformed Church, comprised entirely of Dutchmen. The formal idea of predestination was never talked about in my presence so I never really understood it, but now its all becoming a little clearer as to exactly what I was locked into. The belief in predestination is probably why I never saw any outreach or proselytization. It also explains why we needed to separate ourselves from the activities of the world except from going to school or work or business. No movies or dancing. The prevailing mindset I was in was that I was different from my school mates and that I was special. It was like Holland was blessed with a population of the Elect and that privilege extended to their offspring. When I was 21, the elders of that church came to visit me to advise me that I had to make a choice. I was still in The Book of Life (although I never asked to be there). Its still possible to fall from Grace. If it wasn’t for the death of my mother of seven children resulting in my father leaving that church, I probably would still be there. By the grace of God, I was de-elected. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/28 "2010-07-30T18:14:35Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > I was raised a Calvinist up till the age of 15. It was the Canadian Reformed Church, comprised entirely of Dutchmen. > > The formal idea of predestination was never talked about in my presence so I never really understood it, but now its all becoming a little clearer as to exactly what I was locked into. > > The belief in predestination is probably why I never saw any outreach or proselytization. It also explains why we needed to separate ourselves from the activities of the world except from going to school or work or business. No movies or dancing. > > The prevailing mindset I was in was that I was different from my school mates and that I was special. > > It was like Holland was blessed with a population of the Elect and that privilege extended to their offspring. > > When I was 21, the elders of that church came to visit me to advise me that I had to make a choice. I was still in The Book of Life (although I never asked to be there). Its still possible to fall from Grace. > > If it wasn’t for the death of my mother of seven children resulting in my father leaving that church, I probably would still be there. By the grace of God, I was de-elected. Actually Calvinism holds to eternal security-that is that all the people in the Elect will always be in the Elect with the possible exception of those who commit the ultimate blasphemy. Also most Calvinists believe in missionary efforts-I think your church was Hyper-Calvinist. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/29 "2010-07-30T18:19:15Z")
Well, so it wasn’t that he was de-elected, it’s that he never was elected. God knew he was gonna go to hell when God formed him in his mother’s womb. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/30 "2010-07-30T18:20:04Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Well, so it wasn’t that he was de-elected, it’s that he never was elected. God knew he was gonna go to hell when God formed him in his mother’s womb. Basically yes. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/31 "2010-07-30T18:20:26Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Actually Calvinism holds to eternal security-that is that all the people in the Elect will always be in the Elect with the possible exception of those who commit the ultimate blasphemy. Also most Calvinists believe in missionary efforts-I think your church was Hyper-Calvinist. Per Wikipedia, the Calvinist doctorines of “irresistible grace” and “perseverance of the saints” contradict your postulated exception - the Elect are in, permanently; if they were going to commit ultimate blasphemy they wouldn’t have been Elect in the first place. EDIT: I am apparently slow. Blast it. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/32 "2010-07-30T18:23:36Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > > [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > > > Actually Calvinism holds to eternal security-that is that all the people in the Elect will always be in the Elect with the possible exception of those who commit the ultimate blasphemy. Also most Calvinists believe in missionary efforts-I think your church was Hyper-Calvinist. > > Per Wikipedia, the Calvinist doctorines of “irresistible grace” and “perseverance of the saints” contradict your postulated exception - the Elect are in, permanently; if they were going to commit ultimate blasphemy they wouldn’t have been Elect in the first place. > > EDIT: I am apparently slow. Blast it. You seem to be right. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/33 "2010-07-30T23:50:45Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Also, what part of being perfectly predictable doesn’t deny free will? When you start talking about Jesus being able to ‘safely’ make statements without changing the future, that doesn’t put the power to change Peter’s actions in Peter’s hands - it puts it in _Jesus’s_. Peter remains an automaton, merely reacting to things that happen, and absent changes to those things is locked into following his predetermined course. No, because youn are making several ssumptions: that time is real in some special but undefined sense, that the past is locked and unchangeable, and ultimately assuming that people cannot choose. You are making the assumptions for sake of argument, but making them all the same. In fact, there are theoretical scientific means by which we could observe events, which to us have not happened yet. Time ain’t all that static. God, as an observer who created and is presumably in some sense outside Time, can see our future because the _very concepts_ of past and future are meaningless. You might as well say Right and Left, or Fore and Aft. There is progression, perhaps, but not time. There will ultimately be a universe composed of our choices. He is at the end of it as at the beginning. He knows exactly what we will have chosen. That does not, however, force or require him to control what we choose. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2010, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/34 "2010-08-01T04:46:56Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > > [@Frylock](#): > > > > Foreknowledge doesn’t obviate free will, any more than postknowledge does. > > Postknowledge is possible because the past is fixed; locked in place. Why do you think this? Why wouldn’t postknowledge be possible if the past were mutable? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/35 "2010-08-01T19:41:24Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Also, what part of being perfectly predictable doesn’t deny free will? When you start talking about Jesus being able to ‘safely’ make statements without changing the future, that doesn’t put the power to change Peter’s actions in Peter’s hands - it puts it in _Jesus’s_. Peter remains an automaton, merely reacting to things that happen, and absent changes to those things is locked into following his predetermined course. No, knowledge of what choices will be made is not the same as control over those choices. Suppose I know what you ate for breakfast yesterday. Does that mean I picked what you ate? Obviously not. You chose your breakfast and I only have knowledge of what your choice was. Now suppose I know what you will eat for breakfast tomorrow. It still doesn’t mean that I’m picking the menu. You’ll choose what you eat and I only know what your choice will be. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2010, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/36 "2010-08-01T20:27:42Z")
Personal opinion: I believe in predestination, but live my life pretending to believe in free will, because it’s less depressing. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/37 "2010-08-01T20:37:54Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > > As I understand it, Calvin considered the doctrine of predestination a logically necessary implication of God’s omniscience. His reasoning may be defensible if that premise is granted. But, it would take a theologian trained in the European Christian intellectual tradition derived from classical Greek philosophy to come up with it. The prophets and the apostles were largely ignorant of or indifferent to that sort of thing, and I don’t think there’s a single verse of Scripture that even implies predestination. > > Paul in Romans 8:29-30 and Epehsians 1:5, 10 did talk about Christians being predestined to come to & grow in Christ. Also, in Romans 9-11, he discussed those chosen or not by God for various purposes, bringing up Jacob vs. Esau, the Pharoah of Exodus, and the then-relevant situation of Israel, Gentiles & the Christian Church. These passages were the springboard out of which Augustine, then Calvin, developed their teachings on Divine sovereignty & human inability in salvation. However, Paul does not develop the argument to the extent that they did. > > Myself- I think the whole Bible, Old & New Testaments, puts such emphasis on chosing God’s path & rejecting sinful beliefs & practices that some degree of human freedom & ability to choose must exist. Thus, I think Arminianism has a better grasp on the Bible’s entire counsel. Can there be an intermediate level of predestiny? It seems to me it’s an all or nothing proposition. If it is your destiny to do X, then no one or nothing else in the universe can exercise free will or chance circumstance to stop you. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2010, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/38 "2010-08-01T21:17:30Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > Personal opinion: I believe in predestination, but live my life pretending to believe in free will, because it’s less depressing. If you can choose to believe you have free will, doesn’t that mean you do? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/39 "2010-08-01T22:07:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > > [@pedescribe](#): > > > > Personal opinion: I believe in predestination, but live my life pretending to believe in free will, because it’s less depressing. > > If you can choose to believe you have free will, doesn’t that mean you do? Not if that’s what you’re destined to believe, or destined to pretend. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401/40 "2010-08-01T22:20:19Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > > > If you can choose to believe you have free will, doesn’t that mean you do? > > Not if that’s what you’re destined to believe, or destined to pretend. And not if the concept of free will doesn’t make any sense. Free will is a vaguely defined idea designed to appeal to peoples’ emotions but it doesn’t hold up logically. In other words if it’s impossible you can’t have it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calvinism-or-arminianism/548401.md?page=3)