Then what's the point of living a moral life? If your fate is determined at the time of your birth (which was an idea that the Classical Greek and Roman religions accepted, btw) why follow any religious rules?
If one accepts the above doctrine, there really isn't any point at all.
If your fate is determined at the time of your birth (which was an idea that the Classical Greek and Roman religions accepted, btw) why follow any religious rules?
I think the answer that the Calvinists found, like the Roman Stoics and the Greek Cynics, was of founding a supporting culture.
The Stoics knew that their fate was sealed no matter what they did, but they chose to behave nobly thinking that this was their destiny. Likewise, each good thing a Calvinist did strengthened him in the conviction that he was one of the elect and his desire to do more good things he took as signs of his election to the point where living a moral life "felt" like a compulsion, a continual proof of one's convictions. At what point does moral behavior stop feeling like an externally-imposed duty and start feeling like an internal need?
Emerson wrote some interesting essays that touch upon the Calvinist culture of New England, and his belief that his comparatively freewheeling nature was set in motion by being told at an early age by aunt that it was a shame that such a sweet little boy as he was predestined to eternal hellfire. He knew that no matter how he aimed to please his aunt, who was herself elect and was a good judge of such matters, he would still be damned and this inspired in him his critical examination of his relgion and culture.