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.

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.

Read More