As a five point Calvinist, I've been accused of being a fatalist. I want to look at what fatalism is, and prove that as one who believes in an absolute sovereign God, I can not be fatalist. This is from Wikipedia; Fatalism is the view that human deliberation and actions are pointless and ineffectual in determining events, because whatever will be will be. One ancient argument, called the idle argument, went like this: If it is fated for you to recover from your illness, then you will recover whether you call a doctor or not. Likewise, if you are fated not to recover, you will not do so even if you call a doctor. So, calling a doctor makes no difference. Arguments like the above are usually rejected even by causaldeterminists, who may say that it may be determined that only a doctor can cure you. There are other examples that show clearly that human deliberation makes a big difference - a chess player who deliberates should usually be able to defeat one of equal strength who is only allowed one second per move. Determinism should therefore not be mistaken for fatalism. Although determinists would accept that the future is, in some sense, set, they accept human actions as factors that will cause the future to take the shape that it will - even though those human actions are themselves determined; if they had been different, the future would also be different. Arguments for fatalism, although rarely accepted, do have a bearing on discussions about the nature of truth. The logical argument for fatalism says that, if there will be a sea battle tomorrow, and someone says "there will be a sea battle tomorrow" then that sentence is true, even before the sea battle occurs. But given that the sentence is true, the sea battle could not fail to take place. This argument can be rejected by denying that predictions about the future have to be true or false when they are made - ie, rejecting bivalence for sentences about the future, though this is controversial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism Wikipedia also says that fate is actually destiny, which is predetermined events. Most non Calvinist view election as God foreseeing who would believe and then basing salvation upon what He forsaw man would believe. This would be predestination according to most non Cals. That is teaching fate or destiny, as what a man will do, or some would claim that is God seeing what man will do.... and then predestinating them to it. This is exactly what Gordon has claimed, among others. This is fatalism. This is caused by what man will do, not God. This is impersonal fate. Fatalism. The Calvinist view is that election begins with God. Election is God's gracious choice of individuals to salvation. This election is not arbitrary, but according to God's perfect will.... and for His glory. This is not simple fate, but God's action in saving people who would have gone to hell if not for His intervention. Ok....... the debate is on. Prove me wrong.