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

[Hmm]

Everything we do is totally depraved, so God, by not rewarding us or our despicable behavior is holding us accountable for what we do.... As God owes us nothing, if he decides to gift some with eternal bliss and not others that is His prerogative.

How is this conception of God any different from Kim Jong-un? This is not the Jesus I know. He had friends for example. Lazarus was a good friend of His and He wept when He heard that he had died. Seems a bit silly therefore to say that Lazarus was totally depraved.

 

[grasping the after wind]

How is this conception of God any different from Kim Jong-un? This is not the Jesus I know.

Kim Jung Un created nothing and therefore has no right to decide anything.

 

[Hmm]

Kim Jung Un created nothing and therefore has no right to decide anything.

So if you create something you can do whatever you want with it? Does this apply to parents and their children?

 

[GallagherM]

Sovereign mans ways are much different than sovereign Gods ways in fact Gods thoughts are not mans thoughts and Gods ways are above mans ways

 

[grasping the after wind]

So if you create something you can do whatever you want with it? Does this apply to parents and their children?

Parents do not create their children. They engage in the process of reproduction which they have only a slight bit of control over. They have no control over who it is that results from that process. God creates from nothing and controls to such an extent that the result is exactly what he intended it to be.

 

[Hmm]

Parents do not create their children. They engage in the process of reproduction which they have only a slight bit of control over. They have no control over who it is that results from that process. God creates from nothing and controls to such an extent that the result is exactly what he intended it to be.

How about my point about Lazuras though. Would Jesus have a close personal friend who was Calvanistically ”totally depraved”?

 

[grasping the after wind]

How about my point about Lazuras though. Would Jesus have a close personal friend who was Calvanistically ”totally depraved”?

Like Judas? Jesus had no other friends to choose from. Either a totally depraved one or none at all. The elect are just as totally depraved as the non elect. You really need to discuss this more fully with an actual Calvinist because I might end up misstating their case and leaving you with the wrong view and them with an axe to grind against me. I believe I understand the general principles but the nuances may escape me.

 

[Hmm]

Jesus had no other friends to choose from. Either a totally depraved one or none at all

Do you really believe that?

You really need to discuss this more fully with an actual Calvinist

No, I really don't.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Do you really believe that?



No, I really don't.

What is it you are asking if I believe? That Lazarus was not better than Judas or any other person that existed when Jesus was walking the earth? Yes I believe that to be true. We all are equal in our ability to do good and to do evil. We all fall short. Lazarus was not good enough to be befriended by Christ anymore than Judas or I, yet he befriended all of us but Judas chose to betray him in a more public way than Lazarus or I have done. Peter also betrayed him a a very public way.

If you don't want to find out what Calvinists actually believe from someone that knows in detail, then don't. I was not trying to command you to do something. I was only pointing out that I am not the best source of information on the nuances of Calvinism.

 

[Hmm]

What is it you are asking if I believe? That Lazarus was not better than Judas or any other person that existed when Jesus was walking the earth?

I was asking you whether you believe that Jesus could have a friend who He loved so much that He wept when He heard of his death if that friend, Lazuras, was ”totally depraved” (whatever that's supposed to mean - it's not a biblical term or concept)

I'm not interested in what Calvanists think. I'm asking what you believe.

 

[A_Thinker]

We all are equal in our ability to do good and to do evil. We all fall short.

These statements are not congruent.

It's one thing to "fall short" ... and another to purpose to commit evil ...

 

[John Mullally]

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?

I don't disagree with your sentiment here. I find 5 point Calvinism so out of sync with NT teaching, that I have difficulty even entertaining it as something I would prefer to be true.

 

[Cormack]

Everything we do is totally depraved, so God, by not rewarding us or our despicable behavior is holding us accountable for what we do.

The big banana peel to that however is that, at least according to five point Calvinism, God is the reason that people are utterly depraved.

The sovereign God is in total control and the first cause of their wicked disposition, which is to hate God and to choose even death over him, so it’s not like people prefer wickedness and God has taken up the neutral position, choosing instead to avoid the sinful man, rather God has caused their first estate and now refuses to remove some from their misery.

@Hmm pointed out isn’t our behaviour valuable, aren’t we rewarded for our good deeds and punished on the basis of our bad, and that’s a common Christian belief. Every man will be rewarded “according to his works.” The works however are an outgrowth of mans desires and natural disposition, yet we know in Calvinism God moves the mans natural disposition to either will righteousness or wickedness. The works happening at all isn’t in his control but rather Gods.

God furthermore, according to total depravity anyway, isn’t an option for the sinful man. Total depravity houses inability, that’s why total depravity is really such an odd subject, because many Christians think they believe in it while in fact rejecting it’s hidden premises.

Total depravity and its hidden aspect of inability means that man can’t want God until God wants man first. But God won’t ever want some men according to the L of limited atonement, meaning it’s really Gods initiative that would save sinful man so as to reward them for their good deeds.

Instead God decides to damn those men rather than to save.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

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.

Read Jacob Arminius on the subject

Jacob Arminius writes,

“IN the state of Primitive Innocence, man had a mind endued with a clear understanding of heavenly light and truth concerning God, and his works and will, as far as was sufficient for the salvation of man and the glory of God; he had a heart imbued with ‘righteousness and true holiness,’ and with a true and saving love of good; and powers abundantly qualified or furnished perfectly to fulfill the law which God had imposed on him. This admits easily of proof, from the description of the image of God, after which man is said to have been created, (Gen 1:26-27) from the law divinely imposed on him, which had a promise and a threat appended to it, (Gen 2:17) and lastly from the analogous restoration of the same image in Christ Jesus. (Eph 4:24, Col 3:10)


But man was not so confirmed in this state of innocence, as to be incapable of being moved, by the representation presented to him of some good, (whether it was of an inferior kind and relating to this animal life, or of a superior-kind and relating to spiritual life) inordinately and unlawfully to look upon it and to desire it, and of his own spontaneous as well as free motion, and through a preposterous desire for that good, to decline from the obedience which had been prescribed to him. Nay, having turned away from the light of his own mind and his chief good, which is God, or, at least, having turned towards that chief good not in the manner in which he ought to have done, and besides having turned in mind and heart towards an inferior good, he transgressed the command given to him for life. By this foul deed, he precipitated himself from that noble and elevated condition into a state of the deepest infelicity, which is under the dominion of sin. For ‘to whom any one yields himself a servant to obey,’ (Rom 6:16) and ‘of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage,’ and is his regularly assigned slave. (2 Pet 2:19)


In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, ‘Without me ye can do nothing.’ St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: ‘Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing.’ That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man.”

Arminius further writes,

“THIS is my opinion concerning the free-will of man: In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace. But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.”

Jacobus Arminius: Works of James Arminius, Vol. 1 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[Cormack]

The idea that God is behind mankind’s will and disposition really blows up the idea that rewards and punishment are anything more than divine drama, divorced from any intelligible standard of deserving merit or demerit. Which is why Calvinists rest much of these things in mystery.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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. You're basically asking if I would prefer something to be true that I don't believe is true and don't believe that the Word of God teaches is true. No way. I will always prefer the truth which comes from God and His Word. Why would I prefer something that isn't true, anyway? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Also, I would not prefer that God purposely create a majority of people to end up in the lake of fire for eternity with no opportunity to obtain eternal life. That would be cruel and it would not make sense to say "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) in that case. It makes a lot more sense that a God who can be said "is love" would give all people the opportunity to obtain eternal life.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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.

That is not accurate. I believe in free will and I also believe that salvation is by grace through faith and not by works. To suggest that someone who believes in free will has to also believe in salvation by works is nonsense and not a fair representation of what many of us believe.

 

[Cormack]

Why would I prefer something that isn't true, anyway? That doesn't make any sense to me.

A helpful way for many to understand the prefer question it is by virtue of universalism, which many Christians firmly believe isn’t true (but due to lost loved ones often prefer that it was true.)

I use the example of a car crash or something that results in a fatal injury, so although I might come across an injured man and know for a fact that he won’t survive, my preference against all odds is that he’d live and go on to have a full happy life.

Our preferences in life are often divorced from the bare facts.

 

[Cormack]

Maybe the question comes across as strange since Calvinism is involved Like “You mad?! Prefer Calvinism?”

 

[Hmm]

Maybe the question comes across as strange since Calvinism is involved Like “You mad?! Prefer Calvinism?”

If you had asked "Do you prefer zero point Calvanism?" you may have had more takers.