An Argument Against Standard Calvinism

This post fulfills the promise of the last to provide a standard Calvinist reason to adopt the Leibnizian model of divine permission.  By "standard Calvinist" I just mean any Calvinist that embraces versions of premise (5.) below as an accurate model of divine providence.  This argument is adapted from Alexander Pruss.

The Simple Argument:

1. God would not do what he should not do. (premise)

2. God should not intentionally cause an extremely great harm on an innocent. (premise)

3. Hell is a great harm. (premise)

4. So God would not impose (intentionally cause) hell on innocents. (from 1, 2, 3)

Yet, this argument can be extended.

5. Standard Calvinism: God imposes (intentionally causes) wrongdoing on an innocent, namely, Adam. (Assumed for reductio)

6. It is better to suffer wrongdoing than to do wrong (premise)

7. So, acting wrongly is worse than to suffer wrongdoing. (from 6)

8. So, acting wrongly is a worse harm than enduring hell. (from 3, 7)

9. So, God should not intentionally cause wrong action on an innocent. (from 2, 8)

10. So God does not intentionally cause wrongdoing on agents. (from 1, 9)

11. Contradiction (from 5, 10)

(1.) is pretty safe in most people’s eyes. (2.) seems correct, given God’s goodness. (6.) is an observation from Socrates: it is better, morally speaking, for a person to remain free from wrong than for them to do wrong, even if that person undergoes great torment for doing the right thing. Further, most Calvinists readily admit that hell is infinite just because of how bad wrongdoing is. So it seems most Calvinist should accept premise (6.), which is the key premise.

(5.) is just standard Calvinism.  Still, some standard Calvinists may find it objectionable as a description of their view.  So I offer them a challenge: State your view of Calvinism that avoids the implication that (5.) is true.  I think they'll find that it's difficult, if not impossible without the help of Leibniz.

What should we do with this? I think we should modify our concept of Calvinism away from this vanilla account. We should accept the solution sketched by Leibniz.