The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination Examined and Refuted

by F. Hodgson

This is clear and indisputable. The Methodist preachers are probably included among the “base men” whose “bitter revilings” have brought about this state of things, as none have done more to bring Calvinism into discredit.

And yet, with all this caution, this doctrine is assiduously taught to little children in Sabbath-Schools. It is presented to them and inculcated without disguise. I almost shudder when I think of it. Were all the wealth of this great city offered to me for the privilege of teaching this doctrine to my children, with the understanding that I would withhold counter-instruction, I would spurn the offer. At least, I would do so until my mind had become reconciled to the proposition by a slow and painful process of self-depravation, which, I acknowledge, would not be an impossibility. The apostle Paul speaks of those who through “love of money” have “erred from the faith.”

Our Calvinistic brethren may have some ground for claiming that they are in advance of us in learning and intelligence, but it is to be hoped that they will not offer their holding this doctrine as proof of the justness of the claim. And if it be the case that some minds are determined, by peculiarities in their original formation, to the belief of Calvinism, I thank God that mine does not belong to that class. And, further, it may be a source of consolation to us, in our imputed inferiority, that it does not require much learning or intelligence to refute Calvinism, or to make its supporters ashamed of it.

And when Calvinists ascribe our opposition to their doctrines to depravity, and call our objections to it “impious cavillings,” as does Dr. Musgrave, we offer this apology, that our objections are not alleged against what we understand to be the Scripture doctrine; and that if their doctrine be true, and ours false, we are, after all, doing nothing but what God has wisely foreordained we should do. We would also suggest to them that any opposition to our course is resistance to the will of Heaven, so that it is a fair question whether the charge of depravity should not take the opposite direction, But I do not retort it. Methodists never, so far as I know, seek to raise the slightest suspicion of the piety of their Calvinistic brethren on the ground of their being Calvinists.

The assertion that Calvinism is specially and exclusively favorable to civil and religious liberty, is a sheer pretence. I will just state a few facts. When the Presbyterians obtained the ascendency in England, they proceeded to establish themselves by law. The Westminster Confession of Faith was intended for the English Establishment. Presbyterianism is the established religion of Scotland at this day, and also of Holland, Geneva, and some parts of Germany. Presbyterian ministers in Ireland are supported, in part, by the British Government. They thus consent that Methodists, Baptists, and others, shall be taxed for their support. That Presbyterianism is not the Established Church in this country may be owing altogether to the fact that it has always been too weak to place itself in that position. When the Independents, in Cromwell’s time, obtained the ascendency, they followed the example of the Presbyterians. The Congregationalists of New England, who are Calvinists, established their system, by law, in several of the colonies, and continued to be the Established Church after the Revolution, and until the other sects, combining with unbelievers, became strong enough to put them down and change the State constitutions in favor of equal rights. And, within five or six years of the present time, a Presbyterian Church, in one of the States of this Republic, applied to the legislature, and obtained a grant of one thousand five hundred dollars to be expended upon a Presbyterian church edifice. Many Calvinists have held, and many do yet hold doctrines highly intolerant; and the history of Calvinism is crimsoned by records of blood spilled in support of its tenets. It would be great wisdom on the part of our Calvinistic brethren to allow the question of the bearing of Calvinism upon civil and religious liberty to sleep, undisturbed.

A very strong presumption of the unsoundness of the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees arises from the fact that its advocates are compelled, in answering objections to it, not only to disguise, but also flatly contradict it, and to substitute for it Arminian positions; thus virtually conceding that it is indefensible. Dr. Musgrave, as we have seen, asserts explicitly that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. He argues that to deny this, would be in effect to deny that God is infinitely wise, benevolent, and powerful. He says: “We have proved, both by reason and revelation, that all things that come to pass are foreordained.” He applies this doctrine to sinful actions in the following manner: “Now, that the whole of Pharaoh’s conduct had not only been foreknown but foreordained is indisputable.” Again, he says: “In connection with the foregoing statements concerning the crucifixion of the Saviour, let us single out the case of one of the individual actors in that awful tragedy, one whose part was the most perfidious and execrable, and see whether his crime was not before ordained, and he the individual predesignated as its perpetrator.” He proceeds to the proof of this proposition. But, when it becomes necessary to meet the palpable and irrefutable objections that this doctrine makes God the author of sin, and takes away the responsibility of the creature, he is compelled to change entirely his ground. He substitutes permission for foreordination, and defines permission to mean simply not preventing. “And is there no difference,” says he, “between God’s making, or exciting men to sin, by his power or influence, and his permitting, or not preventing them from sinning? Between his determining to produce the evil himself, or to cause others by his power to do it, and his predetermining to permit men to abuse their liberty and to commit the evil by the unprevented exercise of their own voluntary efficiency?”

I reply—there is a very great difference. It is nothing less than the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. He is led to deny his own doctrine, and take refuge in the one he has tried so hard to refute.

The Rev. Dr. Baker, of Texas, in a tract published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, and entitled The Standards of the Presbyterian Church a Faithful Mirror of the Bible, attempts to establish by Scripture the proposition—“God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably foreordain whatsoever comes to pass.” But in another, published by the same institution, and entitled The Sovereignty of God Explained and Vindicated, the design of which is to present the doctrine of Divine decrees in such a light as will obviate the usual objections to the Calvinistic view, he says: “Certain things God brings to pass by a positive agency. Others he simply permits to come to pass. And let it be remarked, permission and approbation do not, by any means, mean the same thing.” Again: “Does any one ask what is the difference between bringing to pass, and permitting to come to pass? I answer: God brought to pass the incarnation of his Son. He permitted to come to pass his crucifixion. The difference is as wide as the east is from the west.”

But if God simply permits some things, why do the creed and the catechism of the Presbyterian Church assert, so unequivocally, that he has from all eternity foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and that he executes, or brings to pass all his decrees? The contradiction is manifest.

The Rev. Dr. Fairchild, in his famous Great Supper, says: “Calvinists do not regard the decrees of God as extending to all events in the same manner. Some things God has determined to effect by his own agency, and other things he has decreed to permit or suffer to be.”