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

[RickReads]

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.

The Bible says you have to confess Jesus with your mouth and believe in His resurrection in your heart before the Holy Spirit can be given. It isn`t possible for it to happen in advance.

 

[RickReads]

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?

You can`t earn salvation. If you could you wouldn`t need a Savior.

 

[Albion]

If that's addressed to me then yes.

Do you think that's unreasonable?

No, not really. But it does seem to me to be demanding that God march to our own sense of justice as though we cannot "let God be God."

But no, I understand why you think as you do and it's a commonly-held POV and I'm not distressed at all that many people agree with you.

 

[Albion]

The Bible says you have to confess Jesus with your mouth and believe in His resurrection in your heart before the Holy Spirit can be given. It isn`t possible for it to happen in advance.

Okay. I was just trying to go with what you seemed to be thinking so that we could get to the bigger issue.

You said: "Receiving the Holy Spirit before turning to God as a doctrine is no small thing."

That way of wording your point seemed to me to indicate agreement on your part, not disagreement.

 

[Albion]

You can`t earn salvation. If you could you wouldn`t need a Savior.

It was a reference to the other POV--the freewill approach.

 

[Hmm]

No, not really. But it does seem to me to be demanding that God march to our own sense of justice as though we cannot "let God be God."

But no, I understand why you think as you do and it's a commonly-held POV and I'm not distressed at all that many people agree with you.

I think I am letting ”God be God”. He is as He is in Jesus so He has shown us definitively that He is just and merciful and not at all like the capricious and indifferent God of five point Calvanism. He has revealed to us who He is so I'm perfectly justified in rejecting any opposing image of God.

 

[Albion]

I think I am letting ”God be God”. He is as He is in Jesus so He has shown us definitively that He is just and merciful and not at all like the capricious and indifferent God of five point Calvanism.

To me, it is not letting God be God if we say God cannot save some sinners but not others because "that's not fair." Or that we will not believe it, regardless of anything else.

If he wants to have his elect, he made them and they don't qualify for eternal bliss on their own, so where's the injustice?

 

[RickReads]

Okay. I was just trying to go with what you seemed to be thinking so that we could get to the bigger issue.

You said: "Receiving the Holy Spirit before turning to God as a doctrine is no small thing."

That way of wording your point seemed to me to indicate agreement on your part, not disagreement.

I meant it`s not a small error. It violates the biblical path to salvation.

The Holy Spirit draws people to Jesus. That word is similar in meaning to the word drag so when God calls it can be forceful and against our will.

However, that action is not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which cannot occur until confession is made and the heart believes.

 

[Hmm]

To me, it is not letting God be God if we say God cannot save some sinners but not others because "that's not fair." Or that we will not believe it, regardless of anything else.

If he wants to have his elect, he made them and they don't qualify for eternal bliss on their own, so where's the injustice?

Would you think it was just if you find out on judgement day that you had been predestined to hell before you were born, so everything you've ever done isn't even taken into account? Aren't we meant to be held accountable for what we do? You may do I suppose but to me that would be like someone hitting me on the head with an iron bar for no reason and as I lie dying thinking to myself what a thoroughly nice chap that was.

 

[Albion]

Would you think it was just if you find out on judgement day that you had been predestined to hell before you were born, so everything you've even done isn't taken into account?

Probably. I'd prefer it to be otherwise, of course, but he is God, after all.

Aren't we meant to be held accountable for what we do?

Do you really think that "what we do" is so wonderful and that we do not do at least as much along the way that is not right? And any failure is deserving of us being estranged from God who is perfect.

 

[Hmm]

Do you really think that "what we do" is so wonderful and that we do not do at least as much along the way that is not right? And any failure is deserving of us being estranged from God who is perfect.

I think some of what we do is wonderful and I believe is pleasing to God. Of course we are going to do many wrong things too. I don't know if we deserve to be estranged from God because it is impossible to be perfect but I agree that that not being perfect does mean that we can't be united with Him in the complete way He wants us to be. But that was all taken care of on the cross.

I think the main area we differ on is that you think it is judging God by saying something like it's wrong for Him to create someone and select them for hell whereas I don't. I don't think it's judging God because to me that is 100% absolutely definitely not God. An image like that is merely something that's just been thought up by someone and it bears no relation to the image we see of God in Jesus. So I'm not judging God, I'm merely an art critic pronouncing a picture as being a poor one.

 

[Albion]

I think the main area we differ on is that you think it is judging God by saying something like it's wrong for Him to create someone and select them for hell whereas I don't.

I agree that we may be drawing closer together in our observations, and that's good.

That said, here you've made a point that I should comment on. I am referring to the "it's wrong for Him to create someone and select them for hell."

There are differences of opinion among Calvinists, not to mention other varieties of Christian, but almost no one thinks that God creates someone and then selects him for hell. Anyone who winds up in hell is there because of something particular to him; it's not that someone who has no blemish was just sent to hell for reasons known only to God.

Anyway, much of this discussion we've been having is really an exercise in kicking some ideas around. In my case, anyway. I do not have a firm opinion about much of what we've been discussing here.

What I do think, though, is that the argument in favor of TULIP, etc. has more going for it than most Christians of other POVs believe, and that it makes more sense than the freewill, "works righteousness," argument that is often put up against it.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yes ... I agree that it is an issue of understanding.

It is, to some extent, similar to the issue of trying to understand the totality of God's existence (i.e. that it is beyond our mortal minds to comprehend). Trying to understand HOW God saves, which it not a requirement to be saved, is likely just as unknowable in its fullness.

P.S. I've heard testimony of God piercing foreign belief systems ... to bring salvific faith to individuals in a dream ... or vision ...

Those are good points. While reading your post, I was reminded of the passage that says God is able to save us completely - in contrast to the partial salvation provided by the 5 points resort.

 

[Hmm]

There are differences of opinion among Calvinists, not to mention other varieties of Christian, but almost no one thinks that God creates someone and then selects him for hell.

I was thinking of the ”L” in TULIP which stands for Limited Atonement. My understanding of this is that it's saying that Jesus died only for some, not for all. The logic behind it is that if Jesus died for someone's sins and the ended up in hell then He failed at atoning that person's sins and God can't fail so therefore He didn't die for that persons sins. So we have the idea that Jesus only died for the Elect.

Similarly but even worse, God doesn't love everyone. How could He send someone who He loved to hell? So to explain this away, five point Calvanist invent a special mean of ”love” that applies only to the Reprobates: God does indeed love them because He sends the sun to shine on them just as He does on the Elect and they often have good lives, sometimes winning the lottery etc. It's just that they're going to hell but God is God so so what? This allows five pointers to say that God loves all but it's disengenuous don't you think?

Anyway, much of this discussion we've been having is really an exercise in kicking some ideas around. In my case, anyway. I do not have a firm opinion about much of what we've been discussing here.

Me too, everything is problematic to me.

What I do think, though, is that the argument in favor of TULIP, etc. has more going for it than most Christians of other POVs believe, and that it makes more sense than the freewill, "works righteousness," argument that is often put up against it.

But I've not come across anyone even on this diverse forum who has argued that works alone make us righteous. The argument seems to be more that we are made righteous by God through faith rather than simply declared righteous and so because our very being has changed, we are new creations, we will naturally do good works. Whereas the TULIP argument is that our faith is irrelevant, let alone our works because our salvation is predestined. TULIP is very logical - it has logic to support it's assertion that there is no free will etc - but applying rules of logic to odd premises like that is going to produce some pretty strange, though logical, conclusions as we see.

 

[Albion]

I was thinking of the ”L” in TULIP which stands for Limited Atonement. My understanding of this is that it's saying that Jesus died only for some, not for all. The logic behind it is that if Jesus died for someone's sins and the ended up in hell then He failed at atoning that person's sins and God can't fail so therefore He didn't die for that persons sins. So we have the idea that Jesus only died for the Elect.

I believe that you've mistaken what is implied by the title of that point (limited atonement). If Jesus died only for the elect, he cannot have failed at it since they are the elect!

Similarly but even worse, God doesn't love everyone. How could He send someone who He loved to hell?

God does not love sin. That is quite evident in Scripture.

But I've not come across anyone even on this diverse forum who has argued that works alone make us righteous.

Me included. If you're criticizing the term (works righteousness), it doesn't mean that anyone is saved solely by his good works, but that they are required, are meritorious rather than a simple consequence of faith, and do contribute towards earning God's favor.

The argument seems to be more that we are made righteous by God through faith rather than simply declared righteous and so because our very being has changed, we are new creations, we will naturally do good works. Whereas the TULIP argument is that our faith is irrelevant

Oh no! I cannot imagine where that came from. Do you think that the elect are slated for salvation even though they do not have saving faith?? No, that's not the meaning at all.

... let alone our works because our salvation is predestined.

The elect are predestined to get saving faith. That's what being the elect is all about.

 

[Hmm]

If Jesus died only for the elect, he cannot have failed at it since they are the elect!

But doesn't the Bible say that Jesus died for all?

I believe that you've mistaken what it implied by that point (limited atonement). If Jesus died only for the elect, he cannot have failed at it since they are the elect!

But again, the premise that Jesus died only for the elect is not biblical. It's only there to prop up the very concept of an Elect and the necessary correlate of that, the Reprobates. The elect in TULIP is not the elect that most people think of
- those who have come to a saving faith. It is that subsection of humanity that is guaranteed to go to heaven - it has nothing to do with their faith. You might say that God ensures that they have a faith because he irresistibly imposes faith on them but that is not the idea of faith as it is commonly understood.

God does not love sin. That is quite evident in Scripture.

I agree but I was saying that TULIP has a special use of the word 'love' that they apply to the Reprobates that is different from the 'love' God has for the Elect: God loves the Reprobate because he may have a happy life just as one of the Elects do but that's all - he's going to hell at the end of life. Whereas God loves the Elect in a different way and He gives them eternal life because of this love. And all decided and fixed at the beginning of time. The two definitions of love allows a five pointer to say that God loves all but what they mean by that is not what you and I mean by it.

If you're criticizing the term (works righteousness), it doesn't mean that anyone is saved solely by his good works, but that righteousness comes, at least in part, from meritorious works performed by the individual.

Okay but that's another subject I guess.

Oh no! I cannot imagine where that came from. Do you think that the elect are slated for salvation even though they do not have faith and/or do not believe in Christ's saving work?? No, that's not the meaning at all.

Oh yes! What else does predestination mean? Faith that is forced on someone is not faith as we know it.

The elect are predestined to get saving faith. That's how their salvation is worked out.

God handing out faith irresistibly to some but denying it absolutely to others is not a just way of managing salvation and therefore is not how God does it. That's not what you're saying but your use of the word "elect", and "love" and "faith” earlier, is the common usage which is not the Calvanist meaning.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

No. I was a five-pointer when I first came to faith because

1) It was intellectually satisfying in the sense that each part seemed to follow logically. But as my dad puts it, "Five point Calvinism is like a guitar that is in tune with itself, but out of tune with the rest of the band." Lol

2) I was such an out of control rapscallion that I need a conception of God whose love for me did not depend on my choices. I really needed a robust conception of a sovereign God to get out of the rut I was in. I came from a tradition that said we must choose God and live holy, and that sounded great but I could not do the holy bit well enough to feel loved. I assumed God only loved me if I was good, and I wasn't.

So, for mostly practical reasons I embraced five point Calvinism. But as time went on the harsh injustice of double-predestination began to override the benefits I perceived.

Why do I answer "No" today?

1. I think total depravity overstates the case and virtually wipes out any consideration that we are bearers of the divine image and inherently good

2. Limited atonement does not square with God's love nature and love for all people.

To me, the only way to make sense of Calvinism is if all are predestined to be reconciled with God. If that were the conclusion (extend unconditional election across the board), then the guitar would be in tune with the rest of the band, i.e. God's justice.

Good post.

 

[John Mullally]

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

No because I don't find it biblical.

Peter and Paul declare that God does not want any to perish in 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4. So combining that NT truth with the Calvinist's belief that everything is strictly up to God's desire, all would be saved - and I have never run into a Calvinist who would entertain that.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

! Timothy 2:2 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,​

 

[Hmm]

Peter and Paul declare that God does not want any to perish in 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4. So combining that NT truth with the Calvinist's belief that everything is strictly up to God's desire, all would be saved - and I have never run into a Calvinist who would entertain that.

That would be ironic but I'm beginning to think it's true. If we have been created with a God-shaped hole inside us, how can we finally not be filled with God because it would be both what we want deep down and what God wants too?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Would you think it was just if you find out on judgement day that you had been predestined to hell before you were born, so everything you've ever done isn't even taken into account? Aren't we meant to be held accountable for what we do? You may do I suppose but to me that would be like someone hitting me on the head with an iron bar for no reason and as I lie dying thinking to myself what a thoroughly nice chap that was.

I believe the Calvinist response would be as follows. Everything we do is totally depraved, so God, by not rewarding us or our despicable behavior is holding us accountable for what we do. Now if you were to argue that those that are of the elect are not being held accountable for what they did you would have a point. As God owes us nothing, if he decides to gift some with eternal bliss and not others that is His prerogative. Who are we to tell God what is right and proper to do?