And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. – Romans 8:28-30

What initially drew me to John Calvin was his way of intellectualizing the odd parts of scripture along with his amazing ability to systematize doctrine. It’s sad really that so many “students” of Calvin’s work reduce his teachings to five points that were not really his. Calvin’s theology is a rich cornucopia of biblical thought from the post medieval era. Nevertheless, I, like so many others, was drawn to Calvin’s work in my late teenage years for the same reason so many despise hearing his name, his rather extreme views of God’s providence and predestination.



According to Calvin, “First, then, let the reader remember that the providence we mean is not one by which the Deity, sitting idly in heaven, looks on at what is taking place in the world, but one by which he, as it were, holds the helm, and overrules all events.” For those unfamiliar with the topic, providence is the nature by which God governs the universe and predestination usually is a particular subset of providence wherein God selects certain persons for salvation. For those who subscribe to the Reformed view, the Westminster Confession of Faith describes it thus, “God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible fore-knowledge and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.” Which I find to be a rather thorough examination of God’s providence. For those with a bit more familiarity with the subject, many will find that Calvinist as well as those who subscribe to Arminianism or Molinism can reasonably maintain what has been said above. This is the view I taught and defended for so many years, however, it’s when the subject is broached at a deeper level I feel the Reformed view begins to unravel a bit.



For example, the WCF also says, “Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly…” which is going to eliminate much of the majority of Christians who hold to a more Arminian/ Molinist view and then there’s, “The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in his providence that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin”, which anyone, including myself during my beard-bearing Reformed years, would struggle to defend. This is not the only issue that resides between self proclaimed Arminians and Calvinist…there are too many to number honestly, but it does represent a fundamental issue that is often a major point of contention. After many years of study of the Reformed view (never been much of a student of Arminius…sorry), I have found that it ultimately biblically and philosophically deficient.



I’ve walked through Calvin’s Institutes numerous times and while there is much to respect in his work, I don’t find his view of providence as compelling as I once did or, by consequence, his view of predestination. As I’ve adjusted my theology to be more historically grounded I have found that over time there have existed a plethora of opinions about how God so governs the cosmos…and most do not agree with Calvin.



In all honesty, I could probably sit here and talk about my fixation with Calvin and his theology for hours…I even got a Romans 9 tattoo (laughs), but what I wanted to focus on instead is an earlier view of providence that predates Arminius and Calvin or Aquinas and Molina. Join me in traveling back to the seventh century to an Islamic community within Damascus, Syria where we will find a venorated Eastern Saint who is famous for his defense of Christian Icons against his Muslim opponents, St. John of Damascus.



St. John had a rather interesting life and an even more interesting view of providence and predestination. For St. John, “Providence, then, is the care that God takes over existing things. And again: Providence is the will of God through which all existing things receive their fitting issue.” Another way to phrase this would be that God’s providence carries things to their natural end. Therefore it would be natural to say, as some Calvinist do, that which providence touches is by necessity worked for the good. However, what separates St. John of Damascus from John Calvin is his view of the human will which, according to St. John, does not fall under God’s providence at all. Rather St. John of Damascus discerns that there are acts which are within our control and those which are not…sound like Stoicism yet??



According to St. John, “Of events, some are in our hands, others are not. Those then are in our hands which we are free to do or not to do at our will, that is all actions that are done voluntarily (for those actions are not called voluntary the doing of which is not in our hands), and in a word, all that are followed by blame or praise and depend on motive and law. The actions, therefore, that are in our hands are these equal possibilities: e.g. to be moved or not to be moved, to hasten or not to hasten, to long for unnecessaries or not to do so, to tell lies or not to tell lies, to give or not to give, to rejoice or not to rejoice as fits the occasion, and all such actions as imply virtue or vice in their performance, for we are free to do or not to do these at our pleasure.”



This would mean that by providence St. John of Damascus believes God controls everything that is not in our control. For this St. John introduces categories for further understanding:



God is the creator and provider meaning that “His creative and preserving and providing power is simply His good-will. For whatsoever the Lord pleased that did He in heaven and in earth, and no one resisted His will. He willed that all things should be and they were. He wills the universe to be framed and it is framed, and all that He wills comes to pass.” God’s providence consists partly of his good will and his permission. As James 1:17 states, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” In this vain of reasoning, St. John of Damascus argued that God’s good will “include[s] all those that are undeniably good” which means, apart from what has already been discussed, the continued cooperation with humanity in the pursuit of virtue. On this St. John writes, “Moreover, it is to be observed that the choice of what is to be done is in our own hands: but the final issue depends, in the one case when our actions are good, on the cooperation of God, Who in His justice brings help according to His foreknowledge to such as choose the good with a right conscience.” In regards to God’s permission, St. John introduces the categories of suffering that leads to virtue and desertion. The first part of God’s permissive will is to allow the righteous to suffer in pursuit of virtue. “For Providence often permits the just man to encounter misfortune in order that he may reveal to others the virtue that lies concealed within him, as was the case with Job. At other times it allows something strange to be done in order that something great and marvelous might be accomplished through the seemingly-strange act, as when the salvation of men was brought about through the Cross. In another way it allows the pious man to suffer sore trials in order that he may not depart from a right conscience nor lapse into pride on account of the power and grace granted to him, as was the case with Paul.” This is important because it would explain the use of evil by God for just ends without calling into question whether the causal origins of evil find their place ultimately in God. Rather evil exists as a deprivation introduced by human and angel sin and rebellion. The second part of God’s permissive will is what St. John calls desertion. Wherein God deserts a person and leaves them to natural causes usually pertaining to the consequences of their sin either to restore them back to His grace or, as is noted in the case of Judas, to hopeless destruction.

Some final key points that St. John wishes to remind us are that “ all the assaults of dark and evil fortune contribute to the salvation of those who receive them with thankfulness, and are assuredly ambassadors of help”, however, “of actions that are in our hands the good ones depend on His [God’s] antecedent goodwill and pleasure, while the wicked ones depend neither on His antecedent nor on His consequent will, but are a concession to free-will For that which is the result of compulsion has neither reason nor virtue in it.”



This would mean that St. John of Damascus represents a pivotal shift from John Calvin’s view of providence, yet an advantageous one given his earlier context and upbringing within community of individuals who held highly deterministic views. Of course this was due to all of his neighbors being Muslim…Even if you disagree with my assessment of providence, you should at least give his critique of Islam a look…his comments on Mohammed are hilariously good! Nevertheless, this exposure would’ve been important, not because Calvinism and Islam share overwhelming similarities…they don’t, but because Islam does have similar causal beliefs concerning how God “sovereignly” ordains all things, including evil. Which brings me to one final point I would like to briefly look at before closing…



The main point of contention I have with Calvin’s views of providence has little to do with his view of soteriology. I once would have affirmed the likes of both double predestination and supralapsarianism so I can say unabashedly that my contention is solely with Calvin’s deficiency in making God the primary cause of all events. For as St. John of Damascus points out, “If man is the author of no action, the faculty of deliberation is quite superfluous for to what purpose could deliberation be put if man is the master of none of his actions? for all deliberation is for the sake of action. But to prove that the fairest and most precious of man’s endowments is quite superfluous would be the height of absurdity. If then man deliberates, he deliberates with a view to action. For all deliberation is with a view to and on account of action.”



I realize that Calvin affirms in his Institutes that evil does not originate with God. On this he states, “Whence, then comes this wickedness to man, that he should fall away from his God? Lest we should think it comes from creation, God had put His stamp of approval on what had come forth from himself. By his own evil intention, then, man corrupted the pure nature he had received from the Lord; and by his fall drew all his posterity with him into destruction. Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity-which is closer to us-rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God’s predestination.” Yet, elsewhere he is actually found to affirm God indeed is responsible for evil and sin. In his treatise The Eternal Predestination of God, Calvin indicates, “From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [God’s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.” However, I should point out that while the latter seems to demonstrate him moving away from the idea of divine mystery as a means of explaining evil to simply holding God as the primary cause, it would be interrelavent to say so. If we merely grant Calvin’s initial position wherein he finds the cause of evil in the heart of man, yet affirm that God, as Calvin seems to uphold, is the primary cause of all things then it would naturally follow that God is the primary cause of evil. Not to mention this would, as stated above, rob any meaning from all moral actions.



Of course I acknowledge that not all Calvinist believe this…quite the contrary from what I’ve noticed. The litmus test for who is considered a Calvinist has always been rather low. I mean how many doctrines does one need to accept to be considered a Calvinist anyway? I used to joke that a Calvinist who rejects double predestination simply couldn’t count! In response to evil though, I typically would have referenced Calvin’s initial quote above and explained it away via the fall out of second causes. Nevertheless, wherever one finds themself landing on this issue, I do feel there is a real tension for anyone who would consider themselves a Calvinist. Not to mention that this would also mean that moral actions would lose any real significance given the nature of God as primary cause to all actions and almost make pointless discussions of God’s permissive will despite Reformed attempts to maintain a notion of it. But don’t misunderstand me. I highly respect John Calvin and his work. He developed an air tight philosophy, but I would argue that there are more fulfilling explanations that take into account all of the data we seem to derive from scripture, tradition, and reason that also do not require one bite such a burdensome bullet.



I hope, given that this is one of my favorite subjects to contemplate and discuss, to pick this topic up again in further detail in the articles to come. However, these are my initial thoughts as I begin to broach the topic. I think for many, Calvinism has become so prominent given its self defined nature as affirming the entirety of scripture and making strong positive gestures that seem to put God in control. If you pair this with adolescent type arguments like “Who’s is sovereign over salvation? God or man?” Then you have a key formula for convincing laity that you have the high ground…and I’ve seen Star Wars (laughs). Moreover, given the positions Calvinism has had to compete against like the growing Open Theism or the very bland and uninformed Arminianism that evangelicals have produced it is quite telling where the theological pendulum is swinging. Simply because Calvinism affirms certain texts about God’s providence, predestination, election and so on does not make it unique. Quite the contrary actually! As demonstrated above there are earlier and more biblically substantial views that are far more philosophically and theologically palatable. But I will put a bookmark in this discussion for now. Until then I leave you, yet again, with the sage like words of St. John of Damascus,



“Wherefore, brethren, let us plant ourselves upon the rock of faith and the Tradition of the Church, removing not the landmarks set by our holy fathers, nor giving room to those who are anxious to introduce novelties and to undermine the structure of God’s holy ecumenical and apostolic Church. For if everyone were allowed a free hand, little by little the entire Body of the Church would be destroyed.”

