Would you prefer it if “Five point Calvinism” were true?

[grasping the after wind]

So for everyone who isn’t a believer in five point Calvinism, would you prefer it if five point Calvinism were true?

A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no.

I can't say that there is sure answer to this question I can only confidently answer for each specific point of the five so if I have to answer only for the whole I guess I would say no as I don't prefer some of them . I would prefer that human nature not be totally depraved,. I would prefer unconditional election. I would prefer that atonement not be limited. I would prefer that Grace be irresistible. I would prefer that the saints persevere

 

[Albion]

I can't say that there is sure answer to this question I can only confidently answer for each specific point of the five so if I have to answer only for the whole I guess I would say no as I don't prefer some of them . I would prefer that human nature not be totally depraved,. I would prefer unconditional election. I would prefer that atonement not be limited. I would prefer that Grace be irresistible. I would prefer that the saints persevere

So most of them are acceptable. That's a view taken by quite a few people, from what I can tell.

 

[Hmm]

That's interesting because I'd say it's the opposite. If it were true, then there'd be no more worry and uncertainty over "Am I doing enough in order to be saved?," "Is one kind of good deed more meritorious than another and if so, which is which?," and "No matter how good I am, can I lose it all in an instant if I commit another sin?"

All of that is what those who have been taught the usual freewill approach to salvation are faced with.

But with five point Calvinism, all of that uncertainty is removed. For one thing, neither side knows if they are going to be saved or not, but the five point side at least knows it's in God's hands whereas the freewill side goes through life not knowing AND being told that it's our fault if we don't get it right, but with very little guidance about specifics.

It's true that the five point Calvanist doesn't have to worry about whether he has enough faith or is doing enough good deeds to maintain his salvation but I personally would rather live with that uncertainty rather than feel that my destiny depends essentially on the throw of a dice. Even if the dice is thrown by God, from my perspective it would be a completely random outcome because it is not affected on anything I do. I'd rather hope that my relationship with God, however dysfunctional it is, and my efforts, however small it is, counts at lease for something. I can never be certain of salvation but I would feel that I will.be judged on my faith and it's outworking in a forgiving and grace-filled way rather than have it determined by a game of Russian Roulette.

Whatever happens, he is entitled to run the universe as he sees fit. That's an improvement over us playing God ourselves,

But as God is as He has revealed Himself to be in Jesus, expecting God to be just and rational isn't us telling God what He should be like, it's just us believing in His revelation about Himself.

 

[atpollard]

So for everyone who isn’t a believer in five point Calvinism, would you prefer it if five point Calvinism were true?

A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no.

I am not qualified to participate in this topic (being a Particular Baptist), and I have no intention to start another pointless pro/anti Calvinism argument … I just wanted to share a thought:

I came to Christianity from atheism through the Church of God of Anderson Indiana (the OTHER Church of God), so I am VERY familiar with the teaching of the Wesleyan Holiness Movement (Wesleyan Arminianism or Methodism). Like Diogenes I search the night looking for one honest man that will at least hate Calvinism for what it actually teaches, so I can blow out my lamp and go to bed.

The ignorance about what the Doctrines of Grace claim bothers me far more than whether anyone “chooses” to believe them or not. It really is no skin off my nose whether you believe grace comes before or after confession. Nobody is arguing for salvation with a reprobate lifestyle. It would just be nice to discuss what l actually believe rather that burning either Calvin or Arminius in strawman effigies.

If Calvinism were UNBIBLICAL, then the debate would have not lasted this long. If Arminianism was UNBIBLICAL then the debate would have not lasted this long. Both arguments have what adherents see as “Biblical support”, so it is dishonest to just shrug either position off as “unbiblical”.

Sorry to interrupt. You can return to private accolades for slayings of strawmen without any more interruptions from me.

 

[Albion]

It's true that the five point Calvanist doesn't have to worry about whether he has enough faith or is doing enough good deeds to maintain his salvation but I personally would rather live with that uncertainty rather than feel that my destiny depends essentially on the throw of a dice.

Well, it's not based on a throw of the dice or Russian Roulette. It's based upon an explicit decision made by God in advance of the individual's birth. I too wouldn't feel comfortable if this were simply something that was a matter of chance.

 

[grasping the after wind]

So most of them are acceptable. That's a view taken by quite a few people, from what I can tell.

It isn't a matter of acceptance but of preference. The OP asked what I preferred not what I accepted as being factual. I tend not to be confident that I know exactly How this all works or that anyone other than God really does. So I only accept that God knows what He is doing and whatever way He has decided to carry out his plan is fine with me.

 

[Cormack]

The OP asked what I preferred not what I accepted as being factual.

You sir are a treasure. We’re almost 900 messages into “would you prefer it if Christian Universalism were true?” and people still aren’t getting that point.

 

[Hmm]

Well, it's not based on a throw of the dice or Russian Roulette. It's based upon an explicit decision made by God in advance of the individual's birth. I too wouldn't feel comfortable if this were simply something that was a matter of chance.

For me, even though I know it's God's decision and not chance, if I had no influence on the outcome at all, it would be no different than a completely arbitrary process. I wouldn't want to lose the game but I wouldn't want to win it either - it would feel like winning a invitation that I can't get out of for an endless lunch with Kim Jong-un, or something like that!

 

[grasping the after wind]

But as God is as He has revealed Himself to be in Jesus, expecting God to be just and rational isn't us telling God what He should be like, it's just us believing in His revelation about Himself.

How does one know without doubt that one is correct about what is just and rational? I see many people in contradictory camps on those subjects. I consider that God is the ultimate judge of that and therefore whatever He decides is just and rational is what is just and rational even if I don't currently understand how it can be. So if my preferences or my tendencies or what i consider to be self evident assumptions tell me one thing about how God works to save and it turns out that I am wrong I will accept whatever God has decided. For me, the best position to take on the subject is to admit my ignorance about matters beyond my experience or abilities to understand completely and trust that God knows best.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You sir are a treasure. We’re almost 900 messages into “would you prefer it if Christian Universalism were true?” and people still aren’t getting that point.

Thank you for your kind words. I have found that listening , even to a written question, tends to make communication less confusing and more amicable.

 

[Hmm]

How does one know without doubt that one is correct about what is just and rational? I see many people in contradictory camps on those subjects. I consider that God is the ultimate judge of that and therefore whatever He decides is just and rational is what is just and rational even if I don't currently understand how it can be. So if my preferences or my tendencies or what i consider to be self evident assumptions tell me one thing about how God works to save and it turns out that I am wrong I will accept whatever God has decided. For me, the best position to take on the subject is to admit my ignorance about matters beyond my experience or abilities to understand completely and trust that God knows best.

It's true that we don't always know and so we often get it wrong. But we are made in His image and so have some sense of what's right or wrong even, or especially, children. I expect most children when confronted with the idea that God creates some people who are destined, whatever they do, to eternal hell would know that that was wrong.

 

[ripple the car]

So for everyone who isn’t a believer in five point Calvinism, would you prefer it if five point Calvinism were true?

A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no.

No, not really.

Human will is deeply important. God has allowed us to choose good or evil, Him or the world, and this freedom gives us dignity, and points to the grace and mercy of God. He could force us to do stuff, but He doesn’t. He lets us choose. He loves us so much, that He wants us to love Him back willfully, not by force.

 

[Albion]

For me, even though I know it's God's decision and not chance, if I had no influence on the outcome at all, it would be no different than a completely arbitrary process.

I guess that just shows how different people can view this matter from completely opposite positions. I'd be inclined to feel reassured that God has decided and that I am not left to stumble forward, trying my best each day, but having not a clue as to how well I'm doing.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It's true that we don't always know and so we often get it wrong. But we are made in His image and so have some sense of what's right or wrong even, or especially, children. I expect most children when confronted with the idea that God creates some people who are destined, whatever they do, to eternal hell would know that that was wrong.

I would say "would assume that that was wrong". Surely, it seems not to be in line with a caring God that he would create a being with the intention of that being spending eternity in torment. I cannot see the point of doing that. However does a God that consigns people to that same fate for breaking a few rules over a short span of time seem any more loving? I believe God is unfailingly loving and I trust that whatever He has decided to do is the most loving course of action. I won't try to tell Him that He should be doing it my way. That is hubris and me telling other people "God surely agrees with me on this and not with you" seems a bit of an ignorant being arrogant situation. I have my assumptions and my preferences and my hopes and my beliefs which all make the most sense to me, but I cannot be certain God is in 100% agreement so it is best if I do not insist that those things are 100% true.

 

[Hmm]

However does a God that consigns people to that same fate for breaking a few rules over a short span of time seem any more loving?

Good point and, I agree, that that isn't any more loving. I think the only way to break out of this Gordian knot is to consider that the popular conception of being thrown into an endless hell of torment if you don't hold the right belief system is simply wrong. But that's probably a matter better discussed on the sister thread to this on Christian universalism.

 

[RickReads]

I am not qualified to participate in this topic (being a Particular Baptist), and I have no intention to start another pointless pro/anti Calvinism argument … I just wanted to share a thought:

I came to Christianity from atheism through the Church of God of Anderson Indiana (the OTHER Church of God), so I am VERY familiar with the teaching of the Wesleyan Holiness Movement (Wesleyan Arminianism or Methodism). Like Diogenes I search the night looking for one honest man that will at least hate Calvinism for what it actually teaches, so I can blow out my lamp and go to bed.

The ignorance about what the Doctrines of Grace claim bothers me far more than whether anyone “chooses” to believe them or not. It really is no skin off my nose whether you believe grace comes before or after confession. Nobody is arguing for salvation with a reprobate lifestyle. It would just be nice to discuss what l actually believe rather that burning either Calvin or Arminius in strawman effigies.

If Calvinism were UNBIBLICAL, then the debate would have not lasted this long. If Arminianism was UNBIBLICAL then the debate would have not lasted this long. Both arguments have what adherents see as “Biblical support”, so it is dishonest to just shrug either position off as “unbiblical”.

Sorry to interrupt. You can return to private accolades for slayings of strawmen without any more interruptions from me.

Receiving the Holy Spirit before turning to God as a doctrine is no small thing. It`s where the Calvin irresistible grace, forced salvation doctrine comes from. It`s the core corrupting doctrine IMO.

 

[Albion]

Receiving the Holy Spirit before turning to God as a doctrine is no small thing. It`s where the Calvin irresistible grace, forced salvation doctrine comes from. It`s the core corrupting doctrine IMO.

But it's not as though having been given the Holy Spirit, you are free to do whatever you want or nothing at all. And it's unfair to Calvinists IMO to talk as though that is their doctrine. In fact, Calvinists are often berated for doing the opposite--insisting upon overly strict "do's and don'ts" for the members.

 

[Hmm]

Being given eternal life without getting your permission beforehand is supposed to be unfair or offensive?

I've heard that idea before from other people, but I've neve understood the logic in it.

I know your question's not addressed to me but I think it's because it's not universal. If you had been a first class passenger on the Titanic, your name would have been in the book of those designated a seat on the life-boats. This is good obviously and you might start thinking what a good captain you had but would you still think that once you realised that many of the passengers were knowingly and in advance not catered for because they were seen as more expendable?

 

[Albion]

So...is that your complaint about predestination? That God doesn't give every sinner salvation or at least the chance to shape up and earn it?

 

[Hmm]

So...is that your complaint about predestination? That God doesn't give every sinner salvation or at least the chance to shape up and earn it?

If that's addressed to me then yes. Do you think that's unreasonable?