William Lane Craig: Calvisim=Fatalism

[tdowns]

I've heard/read that Craig says Calvinism = Fatalism.

I've heard people say, he's such a great debater that nobody will face him or are capable of facing him on the issue.

I've heard a reformed Pastor, say, he disagrees with Craig on this but has not figured out a response yet.

I'm just looking for thoughts on the issue. Anybody know his argument?

Would they be willing to share it and a response?

My own response, right now, is:

Chapter 3 - WCF

Specifically this:

"7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.a

a. Mat 11:25-26; Rom 9:17-18, 21-22; 2 Tim 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:8; Jude 1:4.

8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,a that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.b So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;c and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.d"

Fatalism?
Worth the debate?

or do we rest in the "High Mystery" of it all?

 

[Poimen]

We have heard that accusation before and we have refuted it soundly. Read the conclusion to the Canons of Dordrecht.

An excerpt:

Whence it clearly appears that some, whom such conduct by no means became, have violated all truth, equity, and charity, in wishing to persuade the public...that the same doctrine teaches that God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will, without the least respect or view to any sin, has predestinated the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation, and has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety...

 

[tdowns]

Thanks...

I have not read much of Dordt...thanks.

 

[tdowns]

As far as Craig....

He seems to be referred to as such a Power House, in debating, same with Moreland...a shame they are not more reformed in their thinking. They just carry so much weight, in Christian circles--at least the circles that think--that I'm reading up and listening to them when I can.

 

[sastark]

I'm a student at Biola and, although I have not taken any classes from Craig, I have had to read a couple of his books. I have never seen him explicitly write Calvinism equals Fatalism, but perhaps I haven't read the right books, yet.

In one of my classes here at Biola, we used W.G.T. Shedd's Dogmatic Theology as a text. Also, it is noteworthy that the editor of Shedd's Dogmatic Theology is Dr. Alan Gomes - Chair of the Systematics Department of Talbot Seminary. All this to say, not all professors at Biola are anti-Calvinists, though the majority are not Calvinists.

 

[DMcFadden]

I'm a student at Biola and, although I have not taken any classes from Craig, I have had to read a couple of his books. I have never seen him explicitly write Calvinism equals Fatalism, but perhaps I haven't read the right books, yet.

In one of my classes here at Biola, we used W.G.T. Shedd's Dogmatic Theology as a text. Also, it is noteworthy that the editor of Shedd's Dogmatic Theology is Dr. Alan Gomes - Chair of the Systematics Department of Talbot Seminary. All this to say, not all professors at Biola are anti-Calvinists, though the majority are not Calvinists.

I have Gomes edition of Shedd and appreciate it too. But, wouldn't it be fair to say that most of the apologetics top-guns at Biola are non-Calvinists or anti-Calvinists?

 

[sastark]

I'm a student at Biola and, although I have not taken any classes from Craig, I have had to read a couple of his books. I have never seen him explicitly write Calvinism equals Fatalism, but perhaps I haven't read the right books, yet.

In one of my classes here at Biola, we used W.G.T. Shedd's Dogmatic Theology as a text. Also, it is noteworthy that the editor of Shedd's Dogmatic Theology is Dr. Alan Gomes - Chair of the Systematics Department of Talbot Seminary. All this to say, not all professors at Biola are anti-Calvinists, though the majority are not Calvinists.

I have Gomes edition of Shedd and appreciate it too. But, wouldn't it be fair to say that most of the apologetics top-guns at Biola are non-Calvinists or anti-Calvinists?

Ya know, it's funny. I've taken a couple of classes in the M.A. Apologetics program (they overlap with the M.A. Science and Religion program). The professors that I have encountered in the M.A. Apologetics are Calvinists (or, at a minimum, sympathetic to Calvinism). So, I think there is a disconnect between the Apologetics program and Talbot, in general.

And to clarify: the M.A. Apologetics is not part of Talbot (which is where Craig and Moreland are). It is part of the School of Professional Studies, although there are professors who teach in both (such as Dr. Gomes).

 

[Davidius]

This may be too simplistic an answer, since I haven't read Craig's actual argument, but I think one would have to redefine fatalism in order to say that it's the same as Calvinism. Fatalism sees the ordering of destiny as the product of meaningless "fate" (whatever that is). Calvinism does teach that all things are ordained by God, but God is not an impersonal force and he directs events with a defined purpose in mind.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

I don't see how he can avoid the same charge of fatalism unless he is an open theist, which is outside the boundary of Christianity.

 

[DMcFadden]

If your theological/philosophical system involves predestinating all things prior to creation, then you are going to get the rap about fatalism. I agree with David that it only properly applies to a capricious or irrational "fate." Still, philosophers will never be willing to cede that point.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Fatalism actually presupposes libertarian free will (or something like it). Calvinism does not. So with fatalism, one is going to end up with the same fate no matter what they want or try to do. Even against their will, what will occur will inevitably occur.

So for example, one is fated to die tomorrow at 6 pm, death by an evil demon. *It may be different possible futures in which this takes place*, e.g. she could be run over by a car, stabbed in the back, death by poison, etc. The point is, that person will die tomorrow at 6 pm.

Calvinism, on the other hand, fits well with something like compatibilism. So there is only one possible future, *and there is only one possible means* of bringing that future into existence. So, Calvinism is actually more restrictive than fatalism, but it is surely distinguished from fatalism for these (and other) reasons. One other reason might be that most forms of fatalism are impersonal determinism's, whereas Calvinism is a form of personal determinism. Hope that helps.

 

[Davidius]

Good point, Caleb. One can call Calvinism/Christianity deterministic, but not fatalistic.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I've heard/read that Craig says Calvinism = Fatalism.

Yes, him and Moreland like to conflate to two views. I think it has a rhetorical effect if nothing else. "You believe in fatalism (Gasp!)"

I've heard people say, he's such a great debater that nobody will face him or are capable of facing him on the issue.

That's funny.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

You read that fast David!

 

[sastark]

Since I mentioned Shedd earlier, perhaps his distinction between fate and the Divine Decree might help clarify the difference:

The divine decree differs from the heathen fate. (a) Decree is the determination of a personal being; fate is merely the connection (nexus) of impersonal causes and effects. The divine decree includes causes, effects and nexus. (b) The divine decree has respect to the nature of beings and things, bringing about a physical event by physical means and a moral event by moral means; fate brings about all events in the same way. (c) The divine decree proceeds from a wise insight and knowledge. It adapts means to ends. Fate is fortuitous. It is only another word for chance, and there is no insight or foresight or adaptive intelligence in mere chance. (d) God, according to the heathen view, is subject to fate: ten pepromenen moiran adynaton esti apophygein kai theo (Herodotus 1). Say Plato (Laws 5.741), “Even God is said not to be able to fight against necessity.” But the divine decree is subject to God…

(Dogmatic Theology, p. 322-323)

 

[Davidius]

You read that fast David!

 

[DMcFadden]

I've heard people say, he's such a great debater that nobody will face him or are capable of facing him on the issue.

That's funny.

Such a great debater that nobody will debate him. Hmmmmm. Is that like saying: "Nobody goes to that restaurant any more. It's always too crowded"???

 

[biblicalthought]

I don't see how he can avoid the same charge of fatalism unless he is an open theist, which is outside the boundary of Christianity.

He's a (middle-knowledge) Molinist.

Such a great debater that nobody will debate him.

My pastor wants to debate him or Moreland - or both. They won't debate Christians, they said...

 

[sastark]

I don't see how he can avoid the same charge of fatalism unless he is an open theist, which is outside the boundary of Christianity.

He's a (middle-knowledge) Molinist.

Yup.

My pastor wants to debate him or Moreland - or both. They won't debate Christians, they said...

Interesting. I wonder why?

 

[biblicalthought]

Because he is openly critical of their natural theology, calling it religious humanism

 

[Amazing Grace]

Fatalism says "When I shoot the arrow, it will land where it ends up"

God says "The arrow will end up EXACTLY where I determine to make it land"


Fatlism believes in god or source that has no interest in what happens. some blind force with no purpose in the end goal.

Fatalism says "what is to be, will be"

God says "WHat I purpose to be will be"

 

[tdowns]

I've heard people say, he's such a great debater that nobody will face him or are capable of facing him on the issue.

That's funny.

Such a great debater that nobody will debate him. Hmmmmm. Is that like saying: "Nobody goes to that restaurant any more. It's always too crowded"???

Obviously, I mean on this issue...he debates all the time. Sounds like it goes both ways, he won't debate Christians? Not his purpose I guess?

I guess I could clarify, the above, that, the impression is, from those I've talked to, nobody could stand up to him, in a debate, over Calvinism, because he is such a great debater. Of course, if he won't debate it, we'll never know....

 

[tdowns]

Thanks for the posts....

Interesting.

 

[Davidius]

That's funny.

Such a great debater that nobody will debate him. Hmmmmm. Is that like saying: "Nobody goes to that restaurant any more. It's always too crowded"???

Obviously, I mean on this issue...he debates all the time. Sounds like it goes both ways, he won't debate Christians? Not his purpose I guess?

I guess I could clarify, the above, that, the impression is, from those I've talked to, nobody could stand up to him, in a debate, over Calvinism, because he is such a great debater. Of course, if he won't debate it, we'll never know....

Well, someone made a similar comment in a recent thread about Greg Bahnsen, i.e. how no one would debate him while he was alive, and nobody snickered at that. *shrug*

 

[Ron]

Brothers,

Below is a post that deals with Molinism.

Blessings,

Ron

Reformed Apologist: Molinism - problems, problems, problems

 

[Ron]

While we're at it: Reformed Apologist: Molinism, Dualism & the Nicene Creed

Ron

 

[tdowns]

Ron....

Thanks, I just read both your posts...exactly what I was looking for.

 

[Ron]

Wonderful!

Ron

 

[javacodeman]

I just wanted to add a few cents to the dialogue.

I'm Calvinist and have had some conversations with others who have brought up the rebuttal "Why does it matter? Why pray? Why witness?".

My former youth pastor said (in so many words) that he couldn't accept a doctrine where he had no influence on whether or not his children became saved.

After thinking about these I came up with this response:

James 5:16 states "Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much."

You might ask, "How can this be if God is immutable and sovereign?" I reply, "Because He is immutable, sovereign, and omniscient."

Let me explain. If I am praying for my child's salvation, the same God who foreknew the elect before the foundation of the world, also foreknew that I would pray for my child. Furthermore, if I am praying for my child, the same God who orchestrates events and circumstances to bring His elect to a saving knowledge, orchestrated events and circumstances to bring me to pray for my child.

My point is, people seem only to want to apply God's eternal attributes in a negative way instead of also looking on them in a positive way. When I pray for God to send His sovereign grace upon my children, I have a comfort knowing that the God of eternity past is hearing my prayer--not a temporal God of only today.

So the point is, we either need to look at everything from a time standpoint (a series of events) or everything from an eternity standpoint (a closed book--said and done). When we mix the two, we end up with bad results.