Philosophical Theology

The aim of this piece is to identify some key theological differences between Calvinism and Arminianism in order to draw out a few practical benefits of adopting a distinctly Reformed mindset that applies to hope and behavior in the midst of trials. Some initial theological spadework must occur before trying to unearth the practical usefulness of adopting a distinctly Reformed view of God’s sovereignty over human freedom.

Similarities between Calvinism and Arminianism:

Whether one has a consistently Reformed view of man’s free will or not, most evangelicals would agree that God’s eternal decree takes into account what agents would freely do in any given situation.* Therefore, if it is true that a spouse would act a certain way in a specific set of circumstances, then by God ordaining those circumstances God has knowingly ensured that the spouse will act a certain way. At the very least, God would weakly ordain the outcome by strongly ordaining the circumstances. 

Not only is it true for both philosophical-theologies (Calvinism and Arminianism) that God knows the future because he has decreed the future, it is intuitive and true that if one is not prevented to form an intention and act upon it, then whenever one lashes out freely, he is free to try not to lash out at all.** Nothing would prevent one from not lashing out other than his free will. Consequently, when one acts upon a temptation to lash out, it is not necessary that he lash out. Of course, in order not to lash out, one must form an another intention given the identical circumstances of temptation.*** Perhaps surprising to most, these tenets are shared by Arminians and Calvinists alike.

The differences between two camps has to do with the intentions of the heart:

In both philosophical-theologies it is true that free agents who lash out in this actual world do not lash out under identical circumstances in other possible worlds. Notwithstanding, an Arminian axiom is that God is not free to decree all such possible intentions and free actions. The possibilities that God is unable to ordain are sometimes called infeasibilities. Furthermore, distinct to Arminian thought is that a particular set of circumstances will yield only one possible free choice that God can ensure by decree and providentially bring to pass. That choice is ultimately up to the creature. Because free choices must be indeterminately free in order to be of any moral consequence, God’s decree is limited by what creatures would indeterminately intend in any set of circumstances. 

Only from a Reformed perspective is God free to decree any possible inclination of the heart. That’s because from a Reformed perspective God determines the free choices of men as part of the creative decree. This is in stark contrast to the Arminian notion that how men would freely choose is undetermined information for God, which he can then work into his eternal plan and purpose. 

Calvinism to the rescue:

The two views couldn’t be more different. Whether or not God determines the free choices of men is a question that has massive practical implications with respect to prayer, personal behavior and counseling. It’s my contention that Calvinism redirects our hope toward God. 

Summary of similarities:

For both sides, a choice won’t be different than what God has knowingly decreed. Moreover, both sides affirm that what free moral agents would freely choose under any set of circumstances are contingent truths, as they are neither necessary nor impossible acts. There are many possibilities, in other words.

Significant differences: 

1. In Reformed thought God could have decreed different possible free acts under identical circumstances, but man is unable to do other than what God has decreed. (Causal Divine Determinism)

2. For the Arminian, God was unable to decree different possible free acts under identical circumstances, but man is able to do contrary to what God has decreed, though he never would. (Agent Causation)

(Let that sink in.)

Practical implications:

If God can actualize any possible outcome (as with Calvinism), then we can pray with confidence that God could have determined to answer any of our prayers that entail true possibilities. In other words, God was free to decree any possible outcome to be in response to our prayers.

Arminianism, on the other hand, limits God’s creative options by acknowledging God’s inability to decree all possible outcomes for a specific set of circumstances that involve free agency. Accordingly, given any set of circumstances, God was able to decree only one possible free choice for which Christians might effectually pray! 

Counseling, prayer and hope:

From an Arminian perspective God may merely convict someone of the need to repent. If God were to go so far as actually to cause one to repent, the agent would not act freely in his repentance. Such repentance would not be praiseworthy; God would be a puppet master by taking away man’s human dignity in the denial of his moral freedom.

Consequently, given a domestic dispute the Arminian’s hope isn’t in God to change a woman’s spouse. Instead, her hope is that God would be pleased to bring enough pressure to bear so that a stubborn spouse might become willing to change his ways according to his uninterrupted free will. In a word, God is free to convict but not able to transform. Moreover, God cannot cause otherwise unengaged elders to speak freely to a stubborn spouse. Consequently, if there is any hope at all, it’s in the elders, and ultimately in the one who needs to change according to his own sovereign will. That’s because the ultimate source of repentance is found in man himself!

One’s hope is misplaced when it’s in elders and spouses and not in God alone. From this common evangelical mindset, the wife can become easily frustrated with God’s ordained servants along with her husband. Although possibly culpable in their own right, they’re not the ones who can sovereignly cause change. Legitimate grievances aside, the wife’s frustration is theologically and practically misplaced. 

Calvinism and the human will:

Because God determines the intentions of the heart, it is appropriate to pray that God would incline the will of the impenitent so that he turns from his ways. Consequently, our hope should be in God alone to bring about change, and not in a spouse to turn according to his autonomous will. Only with Calvinism can prayers be the divinely ordained means of effecting change in another.

From a Reformed perspective, under identical circumstances God was free to have decreed repentance when he didn’t. Conversely, God could have decreed a heart’s hardening when he chose to decree softening and repentance.****

God may have decreed to cause the heart to repent because he would be humbly beseeched, or God’s purpose might be to withhold grace to the spouse because nobody desired to pray in faithful obedience. The point is simply this. We are to acknowledge our creatureliness and press into what we hope is God’s plan by praying he will move the heart as we walk in faith and reliance upon him. If we pray and act according to God’s precepts, in humble reliance upon God we can find peace and even joy with any answer God might provide. (This is what it is to trust in God’s predeterminate counsel, love and goodness toward his elect.)

Calvinism giving way to Godliness:

Given this fundamental Reformed conviction, a biblical God-honoring mindset can be cultivated. 

Points to ponder:

1. If God alone must effect change, a wife’s desire should be to honor God and make way for divine intervention and increase. She needn’t be quarrelsome, lest in a lack of faith she denies that only God can grant understanding and effect change in her husband. Better arguments are usually not what’s needed. They often turn into unproductive badgering. 

2. Difficult providences are rarely about the other person changing but more about trusting God’s plan and purpose unto further personal sanctification. Therefore, a wife should strive to honor God, constantly reminding herself that he has appointed difficult providences for his own glory and her personal good, and not primarily for her spouse’s repentance. 

3. From a Reformed perspective, if a husband doesn’t freely repent, then it was God’s decretive will that he wouldn’t. God would have withheld effectual grace. If he does repent, then God willed that instead and granted the commensurate gift of repentance. Either way, God has determined the outcome and the husband is responsible. In that context the wife must seek to trust and rest in God’s goodness and wisdom as she endeavors to be God’s vessel in the midst of her trials. She must see her goal as something she can personally attain by grace, and consider any change in her husband as a possible gracious byproduct of her chaste behavior.

4. A wife is to strive to participate in God’s unfolding plan, knowing he loves her and is working all things for her good and his glory. If her utmost delight is to be a faithful servant, a trusting vessel in her Potter’s hands, she will have already begun to taste the grace of peace.

5. A wife’s prayers, attitudes and behavior can be the means by which God is pleased to bring about change in her husband. This is the difficult part. 

A loving spouse’s part can be the critical means by which God changes her husband. But no matter what God ordains, we have confidence it is right. To trust our Heavenly Father is the only path of peace.

Closing:

There is ultimate purpose where God has determined the free acts of men. In theologies that don’t acknowledge God’s sovereign determination of free acts, God’s purposes are not recognized as ultimate. He doesn’t desire the totality of his decree because portions of it were not up to him! Such a theology is the impetus for misplaced hope and want of peace. God may eventually get around to making good on the overall providence in a general sense, but there can be no ultimate purpose for the free actions that God was unable to determine. Yet if God determines the free acts of men, we can find divinely appointed purpose in the immediate context of our trials as we seek to participate in God’s plan for our lives.

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

Romans 8:28

————-

* Open Theism and foreknowledge views that deny God’s foreordination are not taken seriously given the heretical implications. If one is not a Calvinist, at best he is a Molinist. So, I compare those two philosophical theologies. Many Calvinists function as Molinists outside the five points (i.e., when it comes to the decree and ordinary providence). 

** Arminians believe that not only are morally responsible agents free to try to act differently, they are even able to act differently. 

Calvinism recognizes that freedom does not make room for ability to act contrary, even though choices are not absolutely necessary (though given the decree they are causally necessary). The counterfactuals of creaturely freedom are contingently true. 

Obviously the caveat regarding no prohibitors pertains to Locke (acts) and Frankfurt (intentions). Indeed, alternative possibilities are not necessary for genuine freedom. 

*** Forming another intention comports with theological determinism as it relates to the divine decree. Within Molinism such a possibility is an infeasibility.

**** One Reformed popularizer spoke of man becoming hardened if left to himself, as if God isn’t active in hardening and determining the specific intention of the heart. This popularizer affirmed self-determination as well.