Derick Dickens is a professor, speaker, and writer in the Reformed Presbyterian tradition. He is also a Facebook “friend”, so I see his posts and have cited him at least a couple times on this blog. This week’s “article” is based on Derick’s response to someone else (probably on FB) in a discussion about Calvinist doctrine and determinism. If you have wondered about this topic, I think this post might help…
— — —
A common misconception running around the Internet is the idea that determinism is equivalent to Reformed theology. Yet, philosophically and theologically, they are not the same. This is a bit technical, but in essence, because of regeneration (Reformed) or prevenient grace (Wesleyan), Reformed theology is not the same but historically has been at odds and a chief opponent of determinism. Here is something I wrote recently on the topic.
“It’s essential to recognize that the concept of divine election — God choosing people before the foundations of the earth — is not unique to Calvinism. This idea is also evident in every Christian tradition like Lutheranism, Arminianism, Episcopalianism, Baptistic theory, and Catholicism, as highlighted in Ephesians 1:4. [While] this teaching is indeed scriptural, interpretations of this verse vary widely among different denominations. So, to begin with, the distinction you make with Calvinism is not a fair delineation.
Addressing the notion of Determinism, it is important to clarify that Determinism is primarily a philosophical concept rather than a theological one. It suggests that all events, including human actions, are ultimately determined by causes external or internal to the will. Most all interpret this as undermining the concept of free will. However, theological discussions, especially within Calvinism, affirm free will and thus are contrary to Determinism. In essence, if you believe that the course of events in a human life is changed by the working of the Spirit, you cannot be a determinist.
To make the point on how Determinism differs from Calvinism, it is essential to explore the two major theories of autonomy (the opposite of Determinism). For instance, Kantian Autonomy posits that decisions are indeed free only if made independently of external influences and internal predispositions. Kantian Autonomy says that we can make decisions free only if our choices and actions are unaffected by factors that are external or inessential to himself. He sees man as possibly being able to be completely autonomous of all things in decisions and able to realize the full autonomy of mankind. Radical autonomy, though, was never taught in Scripture and has been rejected by Christians (not even Pelagius would go that far). We all recognize that full autonomy is impossible.
John Stuart Mill
Calvinism might align more closely with what could be termed a ‘Millian’ conception of autonomy after the philosopher John Stuart Mill. Mill argued that autonomy is manifested when individuals act according to their desires, values, and inclinations. His view is pitted against Determinism where no free will can occur, and Kant, where pure libertine autonomy exists. Calvinism believes no decision is forced, but libertine autonomy is impossible because mankind can never be truly autonomous. For Calvinists, we see beauty in autonomy (free will) in the mystery of regeneration, where man transforms from a slave to sin (lacking libertine/Kantian autonomy) to be able to see the kingdom of heaven (John 3). Regeneration enables one to “see the Kingdom of Heaven” and thus make genuinely free choices.
Similarly, the Wesleyan concept of Prevenient Grace asserts that divine intervention is necessary for free will to operate, though true freedom is impossible without it. Every Christian tradition would reject the Kantian view of libertine autonomy and embrace something closer to the Millian view (as a side note, Mill borrowed his thoughts from theologians, but he secularized it). We do not fully embrace Mill, but I am using his argument to demonstrate that we are not determinists but genuinely believe in something contrary to determinism. If you grant me that Mill is not a determinist (which there is no debate), then you must grant that Calvinists are not determinists either.
It’s also crucial to differentiate between the deterministic views in materialist philosophy, where outcomes are determined by biological, psychological, or sociological ideas and the theological understanding of human freedom. Calvinism does not endorse a deterministic universe in the philosophical or material sense. Determinism, in its pure form, implies a lack of any spiritual or divine influence, which contradicts the possibility of spiritual rebirth or regeneration — a central tenet of Christian faith.
Finally, even in textbooks, they say that Augustine’s voluntarism is at odds with Determinism. It is, then, very difficult to argue determinism is equal to Reformed thought when the two biggest opponents in all of church history included Augustine’s view versus Determinism. You must then ask, if this is the case, then why do some people think we are the same? The answer: they really do not understand either concept.
Therefore, conflating Calvinism with philosophical Determinism involves a significant misinterpretation of both. Calvinism robustly advocates for a type of free will compatible with divine sovereignty, distinct from the strict causal Determinism found in some philosophical traditions. I hope this distinction helps clarify why Calvinism and philosophical Determinism are irreconcilable unless one substantially distorts their core principles.”
— — —
While I am far from the most knowledgeable on this topic and there is certainly room for questions and further examination, I think Derick does a fine job of explaining the differences between Reformed/Calvinistic teaching on the sovereignty of God and compatibilist free will vs. materialist, philosophical determinism, and thus why they should not be conflated (as they often are).
