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

[Albion]

That is not accurate. I believe in free will and I also believe that salvation is by grace through faith and not by works.

Yes, you are right about that. And it did cross my mind for a second as I was typing, but you see that it's churches like the Catholic Church which are most often contrasted with the Reformed (Calvinist) type, and they do teach what I wrote in conjunction with affirming the concept we call freewill.

 

[atpollard]

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.

Nope, I will not take the bait and YOU CAN’T MAKE ME.
(Get thee behind me, Arminian!)

 

[A_Thinker]

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.

Yep ... it's all a soap opera ... with all of the roles, acts, and consequences already assigned.

I, simply, have to believe that God is about something more than concocting and observing a drama where every move is already preordained ...

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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.

I get that. But, in my view it wouldn't make any sense to prefer a different outcome than what God wants since I know that He knows best. But, I understand it's not easy to look at things that way, especially as it concerns lost loved ones.

By the way, what was the reason you created this thread?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yes, you are right about that. And it did cross my mind for a second as I was typing, but you see that it's churches like the Catholic Church which are most often contrasted with the Reformed (Calvinist) type, and they do teach what I wrote in conjunction with affirming the concept we call freewill.

Okay, I see. Maybe just be a bit more specific next time, but it's fine.

 

[Bobber]

But in between all of that weirdness would be the fact that I’d offer the Gospel to loads of people for whom Jesus didn’t die and who God has no intention to save. There’s something very disingenuous about that.

And there's also this. How could one even think of God as being LOVE at all when he asks his servants to be out there wasting their time. That's time away from your family, time away from strengthening other believers. Why would a God who says do unto others as you want them to do to you be asking me to do something with not even having the slightest notion of working through me by his Spirit where he'd be encouraging and making his appeal for the sinner to come home. Wasted time, wasted time, wasted time that I could be doing something else.

And is God one who believes in wasting things. Not from what I've seen.

There was plenty of grass in that place, and they sat down (about five thousand men were there). Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish.When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, “Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.” John 6:10,12

 

[grasping the after wind]

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.

I believe Jesus weeps for all of us when He sees our lack of faith. He loves us all as much as Lazarus. Jesus had already told the disciples that He was going to awaken Lazarus well before the time later when He wept. Was he weeping for Lazarus then already knowing that Lazarus would not be dead but alive ? Or was he weeping for for another reason when he arrived and Martha and the people told Him that if He had been there earlier Lazarus would not have died?

 

[grasping the after wind]

These statements are not congruent.

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

I did not say we all commit evil equally only that we re all equal in our ability to do so. By the Grace of God we can refrain from evil deeds despite our ability to commit them. I am convinced that it is rare for people to consider that they wish to do evil. Do you sup[pose that Stalin thought" I want to cause millions to be murdered because it is an evil thing to do and I want to be an evil person?". No, most really evil acts, not all but most , are done by people that believe they are do doing something that is on the whole beneficial. People will convince themselves that the ends justify the means.

 

[Bobber]

Philosophically it’s called “the insincere offer of the Gospel.” Loving evangelism as I do, I’d never feel comfortable sharing Gods gift in a retarded form like “Jesus died for you…perhaps.” Nor would I feel at ease saying Jesus died for sinners when (for all I know) everyone in the church hall is unsaved (possibly including myself!!!!!)

An interesting way you've put that. "Jesus died for you....perhaps." That's pretty much what a Calvinist has in the back of their minds when talking to another. Sad. Wanting to believe the best of them I'm wanting to believe their hearts must cry out, "How could it be! How could it be that Person A, B, and C have the same hopes, dreams, longings, need for love, need to be treated fairly and who feel mental pain and all shed the same type of tears that persons D, E, and G do but they receive and have imparted salvation grace when ALL, ALL, ALL are under sin! Why, why, why????"

I just wish they'd have the courage to rise up and exclaim, "It can't be that the universe is set out this way. There's nothing, nothing about that that makes any sense!" I think they might be surprised to hear Jesus stand by them and whisper into their hearts , "You're right! It doesn't! Set it aside and KNOW who and what I am!"

For that reason I’d prefer it if Calvinism weren’t true.

It's not true. It's not true because it can't be true. Some may laugh at that but I'll hold to it.

 

[grasping the after wind]

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.

I agree that, according to Calvinists I have listened to, God is sovereign and nothing is done of free will. That being the case, it should be logically impossible for a Calvinist to deny that God caused the total depravity. However, I do not believe a Calvinist would agree that humans actually do good deeds as just as with total depravity God caused those good deeds. So there is nothing anyone can claim to have done to deserve a reward for.

 

[Hmm]

I believe Jesus weeps for all of us when He sees our lack of faith. He loves us all as much as Lazarus. Jesus had already told the disciples that He was going to awaken Lazarus well before the time later when He wept. Was he weeping for Lazarus then already knowing that Lazarus would not be dead but alive ? Or was he weeping for for another reason when he arrived and Martha and the people told Him that if He had been there earlier Lazarus would not have died?

I don't know. Perhaps he was simply weeping because his friend had died. He was fully human after all.

I was really just asking about the Calvanist concept of "totally depravity" because it's something that makes zero to to me. As I understand it, total depravity means that we are so corrupt and filthy etc that we can't even make a positive response to God. That being so, how is it that Jesus, who is God, and Lazarus were personal friends? To have developed an actual friendship with Jesus, would have had to have responded positively to God but if he was totally depraved how could he have done that?

 

[Hmm]

I agree that, according to Calvinists I have listened to, God is sovereign and nothing is done of free will. That being the case, it should be logically impossible for a Calvinist to deny that God caused the total depravity.

I agree, that would necessarily follow. God would have had to have pulled the trigger of every gun that had ever killed anyone. So the idea is false.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I don't know. Perhaps he was simply weeping because his friend had died. He was fully human after all.

I was really just asking about the Calvanist concept of "totally depravity" because it's something that makes zero to to me. As I understand it, total depravity means that we are so corrupt and filthy etc that we can't even make a positive response to God. That being so, how is it that Jesus, who is God, and Lazarus were personal friends? To have developed an actual friendship with Jesus, would have had to have responded positively to God but if he was totally depraved how could he have done that?

Don't get hung up on Lazarus as he was not unique in having Jesus love him as Jesus loves us all. So obviously Jesus has no problem loving even the totally depraved He even loves His enemies and advises us to do the same. I don't see your line of argument as convincing or even thought provoking to a Calvinist. If you want to argue the total depravity point with a Calvinist perhaps you ask the Calvinist if humans are totally depraved and Jesus was fully human what does that say about Jesus?

 

[Hmm]

So obviously Jesus has no problem loving even the totally depraved He even loves His enemies and advises us to do the same.

You don't seem to grasp my question. I was asking how Lazuras can respond in friendship to Jesus if he is "totally depraved" and therefore unable to respond to God in anyway. Do you see a contradiction there?

I don't see your line of argument as convincing or even thought provoking to a Calvinist.

Let's move on then

If you want to argue the total depravity point with a Calvinist perhaps you ask the Calvinist if humans are totally depraved and Jesus was fully human what does that say about Jesus?

I have no desire to discuss anything with a Calvanist as I keep saying to you. I was just wondering what your thoughts were.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I agree, that would necessarily follow. God would have had to have pulled the trigger of every gun that had ever killed anyone. So the idea is false.

He would have to have caused the trigger to be pulled not necessarily pull it Himself. That being the case however does not prove the idea to be false. It may cause you and I to consider it a less plausible idea than others. You believe it is false based upon your self evident assumptions, your experience and your reasoning mind. Ohers with different assumptions they consider self evident and different experiences may well come to a different do conclusion. Things like what God is like and what God will or won't do are not provable by any means we possess. We cannot objectively proclaim any idea on those subjects to be false as we could do for something that was verifiable or refutable through careful observation of the physical world.

 

[Hmm]

You believe it is false based upon your self evident assumptions, your experience and your reasoning mind

No, I believe it is false because God doesn't go around shooting people. If you regard that as an assumption and not a fact then I don't know what to say tbh.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You don't seem to grasp my question. I was asking how Lazuras can respond in friendship to Jesus if he is "totally depraved" and therefore unable to respond to God in anyway. Do you see a contradiction there?

I see where you are coming from but it is a decidedly unCalvinistic idea to think Lazarus not having within himself the ability to s respond makes a difference. For Lazarus that would be impossible but for God nothing is impossible. Once again it would be God causing the response not Lazarus.

I have no desire to discuss anything with a Calvanist as I keep saying to you. I was just wondering what your thoughts were.

Well I am not a Calvinist, I am more in line with Lutheran theology so my thoughts are different than a Calvinist but also different from those that believe that we are able to gain God's favor by our works.

 

[Hmm]

Once again it would be God causing the response not Lazarus.

I don't think that's how relationships work, even relationships with God.

 

[grasping the after wind]

No, I believe it is false because God doesn't go around shooting people. If you regard that as an assumption and not a truth then I don't know what to say tbh.

Have you personally witnessed everything that God has accomplished over the course of eternity? If not, how can you proclaim that you know what He has never done? I'm a bit more humble than that and humility is not one of the virtues I consider to myself to be strong in. Jesus did go about whipping some people, would shooting them seem that much different? Of course, I did not actually say He went about shooting people but pointed out that if He causes everything to be, as the Calvinists believe, then he causes all the shootings to happen too. You consider that He acts in a specific way not because you have first hand experience of all God's actions but because of the factors I mentioned self evident assumptions being only one of those. I recognize that because others' thoughts , self evident assumptions and experiences differ from mine that they might come to different conclusions than I do. that is why I would not proclaim anything false unless I have sure evidence that could not be denied by anyone, no matter the factors I mentioned, to refute their conclusions. When I disagree with people about those things that I cannot prove or disprove, due to the fact I am not given the resources to so, I simply state why I disagree and listen to why those that come to different conclusions from me have done so.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I don't think that's how relationships work, even relationships with God.

I don't either but it is not an impossibility. With God nothing is impossible.