I joined a mens group with my pastor. One of the other men he invited to join is a Calvinist. Our pastor wanted to come with 12 pillars of a Christian life. One member said that one of the pillars needs to be believing that Chriat died for all men. The Calvinist said he doesn't believe that. A third member of the group thought the Calvinist was kidding and started laughing. The Calvinist looked at him and said, "I'm not kidding. I don't believe that."
What
exactly did your pastor say, and what
exactly did the person respond with?
Very often these subtle searches for common creeds will result in people saying something a particular way that offends a point of doctrine in another viewpoint.
To me it seems clear this has occurred. I'd probably point out that Christ didn't die
intending to save everyone, myself. Christ did extend His calling to everyone, though, because He's the sole Savior in the matter. The
extent of the Atonement was universal. The
intent of the Atonement was the salvation of specific people. It's very easy to polemicize this kind of thing, and I fully expect your next response will emphasize one to the exclusion of the other. But that's the problem with your argument. Half a truth is a half-truth.
Christ suffered and died for the purpose of saving only the elect, [because in the Atonement] that purpose is actually accomplished. Christ not merely made salvation possible but really saves to the uttermost every one of those for whom he laid down His life, Luke 19:10; Rom. 5:10; II Cor. 5:21; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:7. The Bible indicates that Christ laid down His life for His people. Matt. 1:21, for His sheep, John 10:11, 15, for the Church, Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27, or for the elect, Rom. 8:32-35. Berkhof, Summary of Christian Doctrine, Ch. 17 "Atonement"
External calling. The Bible speaks of this or refers to it in several passages, Matt. 28:19; 22:14; Luke 14:16-24; Acts 13:46; II Thess. 1:8; I John 5:10. It consists in the presentation and offering of salvation in Christ to sinners, together with an earnest exhortation to accept Christ by faith in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. From the definition it already appears that it contains three elements, namely, (1) A presentation of the gospel facts and ideas; (2) an invitation to repent and believe in Jesus Christ, and (3) a promise of forgiveness and salvation. The promise is always conditional; its fulfillment can be expected only in the way of true faith and repentance. The external call is universal in the sense that it comes to all men to whom the gospel is preached. It is not limited to any age or nation or class of men, and comes to the reprobate as well as to the elect, Isa. 45:22; 55:1; Ezek. 3:19; Joel 2:32; Matt. 22:2-8, 14; Rev. 22:17. Naturally this call, as coming from God, is seriously meant. He calls sinners in good faith, earnestly desires that they accept the invitation, and in all sincerity promises eternal life to those who repent and believe. Num. 23:19; Ps. 81:13-16; Prov. 1:24; Isa. 1:18-20; Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; Matt. 23:37; II Tim. 2:18. In the external call God maintains His claim on the sinner. If man does not accept the call, he slights the claim of God and thus increases his guilt. It is also the appointed means by which God gathers the elect out of all the nations of the world, Rom. 10:14-17, and should be regarded as a blessing for sinners, though they may turn it into a curse, Isa. 1:18-20; Ezek. 3:18, 19; Amos 8:11; Matt. 11:20-24; 23:37. Finally, it also serves to justify God in the condemnation of sinners. If they despise the offer of salvation, their guilt stands out in the clearest light, John 5:39, 40; Rom. 3:5, 6, 19. Berkhof Ch. 19, "Calling"
The following discussion brought up the question I posted here. As we discussed Calvinism we began to see the Calvinism sets up a belief system where its adherents are some how better than everybody else. After all, God loves them enough to redeem them to heaven while God hates everybody else. While people claim that they are humbled by the choice, I find that a little hard to believe. Knowing something about the human psyche, whenever we are set apart from the rest of humanity we feel proud.
There's
not anything that makes us better in our view. But there's an
awful lot that allows your view to say you're better in your view. You have faith -- we don't say God bases His choice on your faith. You have repentance -- we don't say God bases His choice on your repentance. You say you want to believe before God gets hold of you (something that in our view never occurs, acc. Scripture (Rom 3:9-19) -- yet we don't say God bases His choice on your will (thankfully, because no one would come acc. Scripture). And it goes on and on and on -- greater humility? No. Good works done in faith? No. Doing what God says? No. Loving God? No.
In fact God doesn't base His choice on anything about us -- because everything about us is worth condemning. But for you, you have faith and God rewards that; you repent and God rewards that; and in the more extreme cases on your side God rewards people more for "how low they go", or "how many good works they do after faith" or even "how much they attend church". I've seen them all. I'm not saying you hold to any particular one of these views. Feel free to grab out the ones you do hold to, and ignore the rest. But they're true. It's a camp of greater and lesser works-righteousness. It's just works-righteousness clothed in "how humble can I be, how low can I go?" And it's work, because it's something you do. There's no distinction in Greek between effort-work and thought-work and will-work. They're all "poieo".
Of course you've observed something that's a fact, here. There's much less rivalry in Reformed thought for "I'm a worse worm than thee!" It's not a competition for the bottom rung -- nor for the top. And so Reformed people look like they're not serious, or unprincipled, or "think they're better than everyone else." But until the moment you admit that you can't really do this with
anything in you, you're competing with works. Until then you'll be in the performance trap trying to "go lower to get higher".
Bradford pointed out that there is no difference between pre-destined and open theology. God either chose you because he loved you and hated me or God worked in both of our hearts and you accepted God and I didn’t because of something inside of you. I think there is a difference. We both agree that salvation is from God and God alone. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone and even that faith is a gift from God lest we be boastful. A major difference myself and others in my group see is that Calvinist can offer no hope to the non-elect. None. From our point of view, there is hope for all. Those who seek, find. That is God’s promise. Here again is another point of disagreement. The Calvinist will claim that none will seek unless God does something first.
That's just mistaking means for ends. I want you to consider something: that the very Gospel we preach having reached the ears it has reached, that's hope. Why? Because we follow the Spirit of God around. And we preach the Gospel. If there's any hope, it's that the Gospel has reached a heart -- not that a heart has reached after the Gospel, but the other way around. The Spirit brings people to spiritual life: they don't do it themselves. And wherever the Gospel is preached, there the Spirit is at work.
That's great hope. Because these people who hear the Gospel -- they've come into the Presence of God Almighty.
Those who are not elect will be confronted with the Gospel, and will reject it. They will never seek God. That's what the Law says: "No one seeks after God."
So like it's been oft-said, if you're seeking, you need to begin to think maybe you are elect. God doesn't abort the Spirit-born.
I claim that fallen men can look around and see that their life is missing something. Fallen man knows that something is missing from his life and will search for something to fill it. Drugs, sex, service, whatever. Nothing will fill that longing until they come to know Jesus. The fact that they are spiritually dead does not mean they don’t know something is missing. It is that longing for completeness that may first open their ears to God’s truth.
I claim fallen men don't really suspect the vastness of what they're missing. They don't really become aware of the nature of a fulfilled life until they truly are fulfilled. They simply connect it to half-truths. Then they rush after those half-truths. They feel a need, sure. We have a natural need. But that's the essential problem. The natural need is not enough for eternal life; the spiritually dead man doesn't feel hungry for the Spirit.
Often we see the same kind of thing occurring in religion itself -- even in Christianity, and even in Reformed people. People think they need Christ so they "get religious", actually embracing the religion or spirituality lie instead of the truth of Christ. This deflection is absolutely predicted by Reformed thought. Without God's rebirth people don't know the Truth; so they believe the lie.
But there's a difference in Reformed thinking. We don't think we've got the right doctrine. We only think we have begun to hold onto the Christ that holds onto us.
